Realistisc Expectations This Season

Quote from: Foad on September 22, 2012, 01:24:58 PM

Are you attempting to make a meaningful comparison between the minutes played by the loaded rosters TGAPL amassed while riding on Wooden's coattails and last year's version of the Wonder Five? I hope not.

Again, for any newbies that don't get your Fox News approach:   "Riging Woodens Coattails" -  Wooden retired in 1975.   Lavin became a head coach in 1997.   Twenty-two year long coattail.    I guess in your parlance, Steve's riding Looie's coattails, no?  THAT's only been 20 years.

Quote from: Foad on September 22, 2012, 01:24:58 PM

Are you attempting to make a meaningful comparison between the minutes played by the loaded rosters TGAPL amassed while riding on Wooden's coattails and last year's version of the Wonder Five? I hope not.

Again, for any newbies that don't get your Fox News approach:   "Riging Woodens Coattails" -  Wooden retired in 1975.   Lavin became a head coach in 1997.   Twenty-two year long coattail.    I guess in your parlance, Steve's riding Looie's coattails, no?  THAT's only been 20 years.

Quote from: crgreen on September 22, 2012, 09:33:59 AM

Cute, and I assume you're missleading to go for the joke, because while irritating, you're not ignorant.  Trouble is, some newbies might believe the joke.  But those that watched the games last year know that Gift finshed out the season with 28 minutes at Pitt (and 17pts), 29 against Rutgers (12 pts), and 30 against Pitt (12 rebs)....

SJ had all of six players last year. Someone had to get minutes. I suppose we could have gone the Hoosiers route and played four: My team is on the floor.

Despite which at years end Garrett got

27 (fouled out), 29, 39, 38, 37, 37, 32, 31 (fouled out) = 33 MPG

Gazunheit got

18, 26, 24, 24, 24, 18, 12, 28, 29, 30 = 23 MPG

And he only got those last three bumps because of injuries and foul trouble. Meaning either GG played center or Jamal White.

Quote

Amir became eligible December 21st, NOT February. 

Besides being exquisitely irritating I'm a very careful writer. That's why I said "was eligible" not "became eligible." When Garrett became eligible he played 15, 15, 16, 22, 18. The more he got up to speed the more he played. Which made sense, because he's more skilled than the rest of them, other than DH and MH.

Quote

  In games where Amir was eligible,  Gift played 27.8 minute a game.   That means Amir's impact on Gifts minutes was.....2 whole minutes a game.   But then, you actually KNEW that, didn't you?

Yes and I read how to lie with statistics as well. GG amassed minutes and stats against the DIII teams we played in December. After that he was pretty much the best 6th man on a six man team.

Quote

BTW, just so you feel complete with a UCLA reference, even at the reduced 27.8 minutes per game (not the 29.9 he actually accrued for the season, that was still the most minutes per game ANY Steve Lavin center has ever played - be it Jelani McCoy, Travis Reed, Dan Gadzuric, Jerome Moiso, Mike Fey, Ryan Hollins...8 year NBA center McCoy had that distinction at 26.4 in Steve's first season as head coach (his Elite 8 team in 1997) until Gift's season last year.

Are you attempting to make a meaningful comparison between the minutes played by the loaded rosters TGAPL amassed while riding on Wooden's coattails and last year's version of the Wonder Five? I hope not.

Quote from: Foad on September 22, 2012, 01:24:58 PM

Quote from: crgreen on September 22, 2012, 09:33:59 AM

Cute, and I assume you're missleading to go for the joke, because while irritating, you're not ignorant.  Trouble is, some newbies might believe the joke.  But those that watched the games last year know that Gift finshed out the season with 28 minutes at Pitt (and 17pts), 29 against Rutgers (12 pts), and 30 against Pitt (12 rebs)....

SJ had all of six players last year. Someone had to get minutes. I suppose we could have gone the Hoosiers route and played four: My team is on the floor.

Despite which at years end Garrett got

27 (fouled out), 29, 39, 38, 37, 37, 32, 31 (fouled out) = 33 MPG

Gazunheit got

18, 26, 24, 24, 24, 18, 12, 28, 29, 30 = 23 MPG

And he only got those last three bumps because of injuries and foul trouble. Meaning either GG played center or Jamal White.

Quote

Amir became eligible December 21st, NOT February. 

Besides being exquisitely irritating I'm a very careful writer. That's why I said "was eligible" not "became eligible." When Garrett became eligible he played 15, 15, 16, 22, 18. The more he got up to speed the more he played. Which made sense, because he's more skilled than the rest of them, other than DH and MH.

Quote

  In games where Amir was eligible,  Gift played 27.8 minute a game.   That means Amir's impact on Gifts minutes was.....2 whole minutes a game.   But then, you actually KNEW that, didn't you?

Yes and I read how to lie with statistics as well. GG amassed minutes and stats against the DIII teams we played in December. After that he was pretty much the best 6th man on a six man team.

Quote

BTW, just so you feel complete with a UCLA reference, even at the reduced 27.8 minutes per game (not the 29.9 he actually accrued for the season, that was still the most minutes per game ANY Steve Lavin center has ever played - be it Jelani McCoy, Travis Reed, Dan Gadzuric, Jerome Moiso, Mike Fey, Ryan Hollins...8 year NBA center McCoy had that distinction at 26.4 in Steve's first season as head coach (his Elite 8 team in 1997) until Gift's season last year.

Are you attempting to make a meaningful comparison between the minutes played by the loaded rosters TGAPL amassed while riding on Wooden's coattails and last year's version of the Wonder Five? I hope not.

Thank you for realizing my larger point.

CR, it's not hard to see that once conference play started - God's Gift's minutes went down significantly.   He averaged 30, because in November and December he 38, 39, and 40 minutes most nights.   

Quote from: desco80 on September 22, 2012, 08:01:56 PM

Quote

I have a problem when folks "perceptions" clash with the demonstrable facts.

It's a fact that GG's minutes went down after conference play started.   Inarguable. As you admitted yourself his average dropped 4 minutes. 
And when you progress slightly further into the season; and consider just the "homestretch", his minutes dropped demonstrably.  In the 19 games thru January he had 15 games with 30+ mins.  In the 11 games after Feb 1 he had 1 game of 30+ mins.

 

Quote

As also noted, those are the most minutes ANY center on ANY Lavin team has ever played.

No prior Lavin-led team offers a useful comparison because none of his UCLA teams ever had a season with 6 scholarship players!  25 minutes is healthy playing time when there's 4 All-American front court players on the squad; it's much less so when the staff has no one else to turn to and they're choosing to play Amir and Dom Pointer 30+ minutes. 

Anyone who watched the games last year saw that Gift's role diminished as the season wore on.   It confuses me why this is even a debate.  Maybe I should have been more specific and said at some point in January the staff changed the rotation - because that appears to be the turning point.   I apologize if I generalized by saying "when conference play started". 

My point remains unchanged however - if God's Gift became a role player on a team with no size or depth at all, I can only expect that his role will even further diminish this coming season with reinforcements on board.  And I know you're not disagreeing that his minutes will go down - but I'm emphasizing the degree to which I think that will happen.    He may get a start or two out of the gate; but I can't imagine a scenario where he's playing 20 minutes even by January. 

Synopsis:  I'm not a big believer in Gift, and I don't think the staff is either.  It requires some reading between the lines, but his role did change at some point last winter.

Quote from: crgreen on September 22, 2012, 11:37:33 PM

Quote from: desco80 on September 22, 2012, 08:01:56 PM

Quote

Synopsis:  I'm not a big believer in Gift, and I don't think the staff is either.  It requires some reading between the lines, but his role did change at some point last winter.

And again, I'm not disputing that.    My problem was with the OPs statement "there were opportunities to play him BIG minutes last year.   And they decided to play undersized freshmen instead, for the most part."     They Did continue to play GG for 28 minutes a game, and for 30 overall.  And those are huge center minutes.  They had the "opportunity to play him BIG minutes" - and DID.   Those are Kevin Love at UCLA, Greg Oden at Ohio State kind of minutes.  More minutes than the Lopez twins at Stanford.  More minutes that the Morris Twins at Kansas.  More minutes than either Horford or Noah on  the two Florida NC teams.  More minutes than DeMarcus Cousins at Kentucky. 

He was the teams 3rd leading scorer (9.6pts), 2nd leading rebounder (5.6rebs), and topped the team in FG% (.525%).   The final four games of the season, after his role was dimininished and "they decided to play undersized freshmen instead, for the most part", he scored 40 pts, pulled down 29 rebs, and shot 15 for 27 from the floor.   That would be a reduced production of:  10 pts, 7.25 rebs, and 56% from the floor.  Oh, wait...

Again, not disagreeing his role changed (they started bringing him off the bench instead of starting).   But he definately DID still play big minutes, and was still extremely productive.    And he's still the guy who hung a double-double (18 pts 10 rebs) against National Champion Kentucky, who pulled down  12 boards amd and had 17 pts vs. Pitt's front line.   Is by far the most experienced big on the roster.   And who just MIGHT be IMPROVED over last year - you know even JC players DO improve one year to the next - anyone remember or last two JCs from 1st year Juniors to 2nd year Seniors?  Hardy (10.5 to 18.3 pts)  and Brownlee (6.8 to 12.3 pts).

And who just MIGHT be IMPROVED over last year - you know even JC players DO improve one year to the next - anyone remember or last two JCs from 1st year Juniors to 2nd year Seniors?  Hardy (10.5 to 18.3 pts)  and Brownlee (6.8 to 12.3 pts).

Quote from: crgreen on September 23, 2012, 01:48:12 PM

And who just MIGHT be IMPROVED over last year - you know even JC players DO improve one year to the next - anyone remember or last two JCs from 1st year Juniors to 2nd year Seniors?  Hardy (10.5 to 18.3 pts)  and Brownlee (6.8 to 12.3 pts).

Hardy's and Brownlee's production increased because their minutes increased - from ~ 20 mpg to ~ 30 mpg - and their roles changed - Hardy took 250 shots as a JR and over 400 as a SR; Brownlee took 200 shots as a JR and over 300 as a SR. Their skill level as measured by FG % improved marginally - DH from 40 to 44, JB from 45 to 49. That's about 4 shots out of a hundred more makes each.

Quote from: Foad on September 24, 2012, 10:31:16 AM

Quote from: crgreen on September 23, 2012, 01:48:12 PM

And who just MIGHT be IMPROVED over last year - you know even JC players DO improve one year to the next - anyone remember or last two JCs from 1st year Juniors to 2nd year Seniors?  Hardy (10.5 to 18.3 pts)  and Brownlee (6.8 to 12.3 pts).

Hardy's and Brownlee's production increased because their minutes increased - from ~ 20 mpg to ~ 30 mpg - and their roles changed - Hardy took 250 shots as a JR and over 400 as a SR; Brownlee took 200 shots as a JR and over 300 as a SR. Their skill level as measured by FG % improved marginally - DH from 40 to 44, JB from 45 to 49. That's about 4 shots out of a hundred more makes each.

Doesn't it make more sense to measure their skill level as measured by the team's success instead? Lavin took over and he recognized early on where Norm has failed this team. Coach put the right mix on the floor, and the team excelled. Brownlee and Hardy were two of the best players in the entire conference under Steve Lavin.

Trivializing their improvement and attributing their success to more shots taken and more minutes played doesn't even begin to tell the story.

Quote from: Poison on September 24, 2012, 11:34:19 AM

Quote from: Foad on September 24, 2012, 10:31:16 AM

Quote from: crgreen on September 23, 2012, 01:48:12 PM

And who just MIGHT be IMPROVED over last year - you know even JC players DO improve one year to the next - anyone remember or last two JCs from 1st year Juniors to 2nd year Seniors?  Hardy (10.5 to 18.3 pts)  and Brownlee (6.8 to 12.3 pts).

Hardy's and Brownlee's production increased because their minutes increased - from ~ 20 mpg to ~ 30 mpg - and their roles changed - Hardy took 250 shots as a JR and over 400 as a SR; Brownlee took 200 shots as a JR and over 300 as a SR. Their skill level as measured by FG % improved marginally - DH from 40 to 44, JB from 45 to 49. That's about 4 shots out of a hundred more makes each.

Doesn't it make more sense to measure their skill level as measured by the team's success instead? Lavin took over and he recognized early on where Norm has failed this team. Coach put the right mix on the floor, and the team excelled. Brownlee and Hardy were two of the best players in the entire conference under Steve Lavin.

Trivializing their improvement and attributing their success to more shots taken and more minutes played doesn't even begin to tell the story.

What could you possibly have to gain by going at it with this nice person?

Quote from: Foad on September 24, 2012, 11:41:18 AM

Quote from: Poison on September 24, 2012, 11:34:19 AM

Quote from: Foad on September 24, 2012, 10:31:16 AM

Quote from: crgreen on September 23, 2012, 01:48:12 PM

And who just MIGHT be IMPROVED over last year - you know even JC players DO improve one year to the next - anyone remember or last two JCs from 1st year Juniors to 2nd year Seniors?  Hardy (10.5 to 18.3 pts)  and Brownlee (6.8 to 12.3 pts).

Hardy's and Brownlee's production increased because their minutes increased - from ~ 20 mpg to ~ 30 mpg - and their roles changed - Hardy took 250 shots as a JR and over 400 as a SR; Brownlee took 200 shots as a JR and over 300 as a SR. Their skill level as measured by FG % improved marginally - DH from 40 to 44, JB from 45 to 49. That's about 4 shots out of a hundred more makes each.

Doesn't it make more sense to measure their skill level as measured by the team's success instead? Lavin took over and he recognized early on where Norm has failed this team. Coach put the right mix on the floor, and the team excelled. Brownlee and Hardy were two of the best players in the entire conference under Steve Lavin.

Trivializing their improvement and attributing their success to more shots taken and more minutes played doesn't even begin to tell the story.

What could you possibly have to gain by going at it with this nice person?

Again, you are still confused. This isn't going at it. This is over.

It is completely obvious that you are wrong.

Quote from: Poison on September 24, 2012, 11:49:35 AM

Quote from: Foad on September 24, 2012, 11:41:18 AM

Quote from: Poison on September 24, 2012, 11:34:19 AM

Quote from: Foad on September 24, 2012, 10:31:16 AM

Quote from: crgreen on September 23, 2012, 01:48:12 PM

And who just MIGHT be IMPROVED over last year - you know even JC players DO improve one year to the next - anyone remember or last two JCs from 1st year Juniors to 2nd year Seniors?  Hardy (10.5 to 18.3 pts)  and Brownlee (6.8 to 12.3 pts).

Hardy's and Brownlee's production increased because their minutes increased - from ~ 20 mpg to ~ 30 mpg - and their roles changed - Hardy took 250 shots as a JR and over 400 as a SR; Brownlee took 200 shots as a JR and over 300 as a SR. Their skill level as measured by FG % improved marginally - DH from 40 to 44, JB from 45 to 49. That's about 4 shots out of a hundred more makes each.

Doesn't it make more sense to measure their skill level as measured by the team's success instead? Lavin took over and he recognized early on where Norm has failed this team. Coach put the right mix on the floor, and the team excelled. Brownlee and Hardy were two of the best players in the entire conference under Steve Lavin.

Trivializing their improvement and attributing their success to more shots taken and more minutes played doesn't even begin to tell the story.

What could you possibly have to gain by going at it with this nice person?

Again, you are still confused. This isn't going at it. This is over.

It is completely obvious that you are wrong.

To the contrary, it's totally and absotively obvious that you have completely no idea whatsoever that you are even talking about anything that you vaguely even have an idea that you are talking about. Moreover, you're absolutely 100 percent wrong and incorrect and not right and if you weren't so much of a woman you'd man up like a man and do the manly thing and admit it like a man who manned up by manning up like a man.

See, UCLA said that GGS might improve as did our last two Jucos and then noted their increased point production from one year to the next as evidence of their improvement. But their increased point production was the result of more shots and changed roles in the offense, not any demonstrable increase in skills. The numbers say their skills were relatively the same and no less an expert than TGAPL said in the preseason that Hardy was the best shooter he'd ever coached, which skill level he didn't attain by improving between March of his junior year and October of his senior year. So to recap: not only is their increased point production utterly irrelevant to the proposition that GGA might show a similar level of improvement as measured by the metric he presented as evidence, but the evidence is that their offensive skills didn't increase except marginally. And in fact, the only metric less relevant to the proposition that GGA might improve as much as did DH is the one you suggest, the overall success of the team, which is hardly surprising, as you're a well known as a bit of a dim bulb and have even won an award as such IIRC.

Thus have I schooled you and now this argument really is over. I have won and you have lost and I am right and you are wrong. There is nothing left to talk about except perhaps how wrong you are and how right I am and how everyone else agrees with me and my logicalness and the correctiosity of my thoughtitude. If you'd like to discuss that feel free to respond. However, if you do you'll have fallen into my clever trap whereby I will have tricked you into admitting how wrong you are, so suck on that bitter pill why don't you.

I apologize. You're right. Lavin was merely lucky that Norm's keen eye for talent handed him a team that was good enough to be ranked in the top 10 in the country. Again, I'm sorry for not recognizing it sooner, or even while it was happening, like while we were throwing Duke the biggest beat down they've ever seen in MSG.

Again, you lose.

Quote from: Poison on September 24, 2012, 12:41:03 PM

I apologize. You're right. Lavin was merely lucky that Norm's keen eye for talent handed him a team that was good enough to be ranked in the top 10 in the country. Again, I'm sorry for not recognizing it sooner, or even while it was happening, like while we were throwing Duke the biggest beat down they've ever seen in MSG.

Again, you lose.

All that you've concinced me of is that you are so stupid that you can't even follow the thread of a conversation. The conversation you commented on involved GGA's potential for improvement from his first year of eligibility to his second. UCLA postulated as evidence that such improvement is possible and perhaps likely Dwight Hardy's increased point production from year one to year two. I suggested that Hardy's increased production was a function of increased minutes and increased opportunities, not merely the natural consequence of increased maturity. Norm's keen eye for talent, not mentioned by me in this context, is not evidence of GGA's potential for improvement. It is completely irrelevant to that point, which was the point under discussion, which discussion you are seemingly too dumb to follow. Similarly is the margin from the dOOk game irrelevant. Similarly is the ranking of the team irrelevant. They have nothing to do with GGA and nothing to do with Dwight Hardy's increased number of points. In fact the opposite: increased minutes and production from Hardy and Brownlee resulted in the team's success. They were better players, who took more shots, with the result that SJ scored more points and won more games. So you got it exactly backwards. Congratulations. Now, if you want to pretend that you've somehow won the internet by bringing up random events and completely misunderstanding them it's no skin off my nuts but in reality all it's proof of is that you're a nincompoop.

I said nothing about GG in this thread, nor do I intend to. GG was not the only topic on this thread. The posts above actually prove that, but don't let that cloud your response. GG might become a better player, he might not. I'm not expecting him to become better because of recent history with different players.

I commented on your insinuation that Lavin was lucky to inherit Norm's players, and that it was mere opportunity that brought about their success.
I'm sorry that you are not able to recognize that it was Lavin's system that allowed Hardy and Brownlee to excel. Hardy ran the point for Lavin. He didn't put himself at a new position. Lavin gave the team the best chance to win, because he knew how to work with what he had.

Clearly, you are in favor of Norm Roberts over Steve Lavin. Perhaps Norm is a relative of yours?