Did some of you really think....

It's important to look at RSCI when evaluating our recruits, i'm taking a look back

http://www.rscihoops.com/

2011
35- Dom Pointer - I'd say he was a bit over-rated here due to his raw athletic ability, and I'm sure he could utterly dominate HS ball with that.
38 - Maurice Harkless -  He was undervalued, and proved that year 1
40 - Jakarr Sampson - I'd say that's pretty much on point, if he can put together a few more aspects of his game, thats about right.
47 - Deangelo Harrison - UNDERRATED
52- Jamaal Branch -  Jury still out, but at this point I would say he has not performed to that ranking.
73 - Amir Garrett - Overrated due to superior athletic ability and talent, just like Dom, he could completely dominate HS kids.

2012
69 - Chris Obekpa -  Jury is still out on him, I'd say he is proving his worth right around that spot, some good potential but glaring holes in the kids game
79 - Jakarr Sampson - he makes the list again as this is when he truly came out, and this rating is pretty spot on.

2013
26 - Rysheed Jordan - Proving his value there, and maybe a bit underrated when looking back.

So I'd say it's been pretty hit or miss when it comes to looking at whether our dudes have panned out. Phil Greene was not highly touted and did not make any RSCI lists.

I wouldn't look at Karr in 2012.  He was really a 2011 recruit.  And thats whats even worse about his play.  He's really a Jr.

thats whats even worse about his play.  He's really a Jr.

Is this what we're disappointed about? His numbers are better than Shelton Jones as a sophomore; freshman year equal to David Russell; sophomore year equal to Willie Glass's junior year. These are some of the great players in SJ history.

Sampson
14.9 / 6.6 (fr)
11.6 / 6.6 (so)

Shelton Jones
8.5 / 5.7 (so)
14.6 /7.8 (jr)

David Russell
10.8 / 5.3 (fr)
14.8 / 7.8 (so)

Willie Glass
7.0 / 3.2 (so)
13.3 / 5.6 (jr)

Quote from: Moose on January 16, 2014, 04:00:33 PM

thats whats even worse about his play.  He's really a Jr.

Is this what we're disappointed about? His numbers are better than Shelton Jones as a sophomore; freshman year equal to David Russell; sophomore year equal to Willie Glass's junior year. These are some of the great players in SJ history.

Sampson
14.9 / 6.6 (fr)
11.6 / 6.6 (so)

Shelton Jones
8.5 / 5.7 (so)
14.6 /7.8 (jr)

David Russell
10.8 / 5.3 (fr)
14.8 / 7.8 (so)

Willie Glass
7.0 / 3.2 (so)
13.3 / 5.6 (jr)

This is an argument that we have had often these many long, terrible basketball watching years. I don't think it is accurate to compare stats from guys on good teams to guys on a bad team. Russell, Jones and Glass played with much better players than Sampson had so it stands to reason stats would be less than on bad teams playing with only one other good player.

Quote from: Moose on January 16, 2014, 04:00:33 PM

thats whats even worse about his play.  He's really a Jr.

Is this what we're disappointed about? His numbers are better than Shelton Jones as a sophomore; freshman year equal to David Russell; sophomore year equal to Willie Glass's junior year. These are some of the great players in SJ history.

Sampson
14.9 / 6.6 (fr)
11.6 / 6.6 (so)

Shelton Jones
8.5 / 5.7 (so)
14.6 /7.8 (jr)

David Russell
10.8 / 5.3 (fr)
14.8 / 7.8 (so)

Willie Glass
7.0 / 3.2 (so)
13.3 / 5.6 (jr)

Stop.  You're playing an angle that you would find infuriating if someone else used it to make their argument. 
You're presenting cumulative stats as proof of one player's value over another, when the time periods of accumulation are far from comparable.

I can't find any source that tracked minutes played going back that far, but I can't imagine that WIllie Glass as a soph and junior was playing 32mins and taking 14 shots a game.   And Jones's soph year he had Glass and Berry ahead of him at forward.   
They simply didn't have the opportunities Sampson has had to accumulate stats.

But even beyond the strict numerical comparison, Sampson's defense and role in the offense has been a disappointment this year.   A BE ROY shouldn't be as suspect as he is defensively, nor should he still be a blackhole when he receives the ball.   Part of the evaluation has to be qualitative.  And Sampson has failed the eye test this season so far

In his first 2 seasons David Russell played on teams with a combined record of 41-16 and played in 1 NCAA and 1 NIT

Willie Glass record was 49-16 and played in 6 NCAA games after two seasons

Shelton Jones 62-9 with 7 NCAA games under his belt

This is an argument that we have had often these many long, terrible basketball watching years. I don't think it is accurate to compare stats from guys on good teams to guys on a bad team. Russell, Jones and Glass played with much better players than Sampson had so it stands to reason stats would be less than on bad teams playing with only one other good player.

Who's stats would be diminished? Russell's stats are enhanced because he played with better players, yes? A better PG who gave him the ball in better position. Better players who demand attention from the defense. A better coach who knows how to utilize and develop his skills. And wouldn't Sampson would be an improved player on a better team with a better coach? And wouldn't his contribution be viewed differently?

Quote from: we are sju on January 16, 2014, 04:19:23 PM

This is an argument that we have had often these many long, terrible basketball watching years. I don't think it is accurate to compare stats from guys on good teams to guys on a bad team. Russell, Jones and Glass played with much better players than Sampson had so it stands to reason stats would be less than on bad teams playing with only one other good player.

Who's stats would be diminished? Russell's stats are enhanced because he played with better players, yes? A better PG who gave him the ball in better position. Better players who demand attention from the defense. A better coach who knows how to utilize and develop his skills. And wouldn't Sampson would be an improved player on a better team with a better coach? And wouldn't his contribution be viewed differently?

The more good players you have generally your stats go down. Mullin's highest scoring average was when he was a junior and played on what was his weakest team. Berry's average jumped the year after Mullin left.

Forget all that though do you think Sampson is better than any of those three? The closest would probably be Glass who was a way better defender than Sampson is.

Stop.  You're playing an angle that you would find infuriating if someone else used it to make their argument.  You're presenting cumulative stats as proof of one player's value over another, when the time periods of accumulation are far from comparable.

I can't find any source that tracked minutes played going back that far, but I can't imagine that WIllie Glass as a soph and junior was playing 32mins and taking 14 shots a game.   And Jones's soph year he had Glass and Berry ahead of him at forward.   
They simply didn't have the opportunities Sampson has had to accumulate stats.

But even beyond the strict numerical comparison, Sampson's defense and role in the offense has been a disappointment this year.   A BE ROY shouldn't be as suspect as he is defensively, nor should he still be a blackhole when he receives the ball.   Part of the evaluation has to be qualitative.  And Sampson has failed the eye test this season so far

I'm not really making an argument and I said nothing about a player's value. I certainly don't think Sampson is as spectacular as was David Russell or as important to the success of his teams as Sampson is to the failure of his. The point I was making was about expectations. Sampson over achieved as a freshman. He's slightly underachieved this year - compared to last year. He's certainly not underachieving compared to the sophomores I watched growing up. Neither his numbers nor his play are worthy of scorn. You might be disappointed in him, but I'm not. I'm disappointed in Branch, who's shown nothing. I'm disappointed in Sanchez. I'm disappointed in Pointer. Greene is an abomination. Bourgault is a bust. But Sampson's been good enough and would be a valuable player on a better team with a less inept coach. Yes, his defense leaves something to be desired. His shooting percentage is low but that's is a function of the ridiculous offense we run. His rebounding could be better, but not much - he's a couple per game off Walter Berry, who was about the best rebounder SJ has ever had. He's close to the least of our problems and yet I continue to read how he gives us nothing. Nothing but double digit scoring and half a dozen rebounds a game.

Forget all that though do you think Sampson is better than any of those three? The closest would probably be Glass who was a way better defender than Sampson is.

Not David Russell on general principles. So far he's as been about as good as Jones in two years. I assume that with normal development by his senior year he'll surpass Jones and certainly Glass. How do you think Glass would fare on this team? He'd probably be suspended.

My turn: Do you think Sampson would be a better or worse player if he played with Mullin and was coached by Lou instead of with Orlando Sanchez coached by Bozo the Lavin?

Quote from: desco80 on January 16, 2014, 04:32:31 PM

Stop.  You're playing an angle that you would find infuriating if someone else used it to make their argument.  You're presenting cumulative stats as proof of one player's value over another, when the time periods of accumulation are far from comparable.

I can't find any source that tracked minutes played going back that far, but I can't imagine that WIllie Glass as a soph and junior was playing 32mins and taking 14 shots a game.   And Jones's soph year he had Glass and Berry ahead of him at forward.   
They simply didn't have the opportunities Sampson has had to accumulate stats.

But even beyond the strict numerical comparison, Sampson's defense and role in the offense has been a disappointment this year.   A BE ROY shouldn't be as suspect as he is defensively, nor should he still be a blackhole when he receives the ball.   Part of the evaluation has to be qualitative.  And Sampson has failed the eye test this season so far

I'm not really making an argument and I said nothing about a player's value. I certainly don't think Sampson is as spectacular as was David Russell or as important to the success of his teams as Sampson is to the failure of his. The point I was making was about expectations. Sampson over achieved as a freshman. He's slightly underachieved this year - compared to last year. He's certainly not underachieving compared to the sophomores I watched growing up. Neither his numbers nor his play are worthy of scorn. You might be disappointed in him, but I'm not. I'm disappointed in Branch, who's shown nothing. I'm disappointed in Sanchez. I'm disappointed in Pointer. Greene is an abomination. Bourgault is a bust. But Sampson's been good enough and would be a valuable player on a better team with a less inept coach. Yes, his defense leaves something to be desired. His shooting percentage is low but that's is a function of the ridiculous offense we run. His rebounding could be better, but not much - he's a couple per game off Walter Berry, who was about the best rebounder SJ has ever had. He's close to the least of our problems and yet I continue to read how he gives us nothing. Nothing but double digit scoring and half a dozen rebounds a game.

Fair or not, a lot of fans expect Sampson to fill the void left by Harkless, and he just can't, and never will, because he's just not as good as Moe.  On a really good team, Samspon would be your third leading scorer and second leading rebounder with his numbers this year, and on a good team, no one would be complaining too much about that.  Our problem is that we need Samspon to be more to make up for our offensive deficiencies and poor rebounding.

Quote from: desco80 on January 16, 2014, 04:32:31 PM

Stop.  You're playing an angle that you would find infuriating if someone else used it to make their argument.  You're presenting cumulative stats as proof of one player's value over another, when the time periods of accumulation are far from comparable.

I can't find any source that tracked minutes played going back that far, but I can't imagine that WIllie Glass as a soph and junior was playing 32mins and taking 14 shots a game.   And Jones's soph year he had Glass and Berry ahead of him at forward.   
They simply didn't have the opportunities Sampson has had to accumulate stats.

But even beyond the strict numerical comparison, Sampson's defense and role in the offense has been a disappointment this year.   A BE ROY shouldn't be as suspect as he is defensively, nor should he still be a blackhole when he receives the ball.   Part of the evaluation has to be qualitative.  And Sampson has failed the eye test this season so far

I'm not really making an argument and I said nothing about a player's value. I certainly don't think Sampson is as spectacular as was David Russell or as important to the success of his teams as Sampson is to the failure of his. The point I was making was about expectations. Sampson over achieved as a freshman. He's slightly underachieved this year - compared to last year. He's certainly not underachieving compared to the sophomores I watched growing up. Neither his numbers nor his play are worthy of scorn. You might be disappointed in him, but I'm not. I'm disappointed in Branch, who's shown nothing. I'm disappointed in Sanchez. I'm disappointed in Pointer. Greene is an abomination. Bourgault is a bust. But Sampson's been good enough and would be a valuable player on a better team with a less inept coach. Yes, his defense leaves something to be desired. His shooting percentage is low but that's is a function of the ridiculous offense we run. His rebounding could be better, but not much - he's a couple per game off Walter Berry, who was about the best rebounder SJ has ever had. He's close to the least of our problems and yet I continue to read how he gives us nothing. Nothing but double digit scoring and half a dozen rebounds a game.

There is a big difference in 2 board per game. You average 6 a game and you are an adequate rebounder you average 8 you are a good rebounder. Even if it is only perception it is there.

BTW I know you are only doing it to prove a point and I def might be living in the past when it comes to SJU but every time you  compare someone from my childhood to someone from one of these busted teams my eyes start to bleed! Particularly Berry and Russell.

Quote from: we are sju on January 16, 2014, 05:02:50 PM

Forget all that though do you think Sampson is better than any of those three? The closest would probably be Glass who was a way better defender than Sampson is.

Not David Russell on general principles. So far he's as been about as good as Jones in two years. I assume that with normal development by his senior year he'll surpass Jones and certainly Glass. How do you think Glass would fare on this team? He'd probably be suspended.

My turn: Do you think Sampson would be a better or worse player if he played with Mullin and was coached by Lou instead of with Orlando Sanchez coached by Bozo the Lavin?

I like Sampson. I am not sure he is a winning player though.

To answer your question, obviously playing with Mullin and for Louie as opposed to with Harrison( I used him to make it fairer) and for Lavin would make him a better player.
To expand on that though I really did try to think if those mid 80 teams would have been just as good with Sampson as opposed to either Glass or Jones and I really can't say that. I think the other two were just as if not more athletic and just brought more to the table. Granted I am extremely biased towards those teams.

I agree Glass would struggle if he was transported in time to this team. I picture him being Dom Pointer.
Jones would be our best player however.

Fair or not, a lot of fans expect Sampson to fill the void left by Harkless, and he just can't, and never will, because he's just not as good as Moe.  On a really good team, Samspon would be your third leading scorer and second leading rebounder with his numbers this year, and on a good team, no one would be complaining too much about that.  Our problem is that we need Samspon to be more to make up for our offensive deficiencies and poor rebounding.

Right, and kind of my point. The problem here is systemic. It's not the players and it's certainly not one player. In another situation Sampson wouldn't need to shoot 60 percent from the floor and average 20 points and 10 rebounds for his team to be successful. Which is what he'd have to do here. As an astute observer said elsewhere, this group coached by Jay Wright would beat Villanova's team coached by Lavin 9 times out of 10. His dopey jam session system is the problem.

Jones would be our best player however.

Jones as a junior would be our best player. Jones as a freshman not so much.

Quote from: we are sju on January 16, 2014, 05:20:57 PM

Jones would be our best player however.

Jones as a junior would be our best player. Jones as a freshman not so much.

True but he was a big reason we beat Gtown that one time

It's important to look at RSCI when evaluating our recruits, i'm taking a look back

http://www.rscihoops.com/

2011
35- Dom Pointer - I'd say he was a bit over-rated here due to his raw athletic ability, and I'm sure he could utterly dominate HS ball with that.
38 - Maurice Harkless -  He was undervalued, and proved that year 1
40 - Jakarr Sampson - I'd say that's pretty much on point, if he can put together a few more aspects of his game, thats about right.
47 - Deangelo Harrison - UNDERRATED
52- Jamaal Branch -  Jury still out, but at this point I would say he has not performed to that ranking.
73 - Amir Garrett - Overrated due to superior athletic ability and talent, just like Dom, he could completely dominate HS kids.

2012
69 - Chris Obekpa -  Jury is still out on him, I'd say he is proving his worth right around that spot, some good potential but glaring holes in the kids game
79 - Jakarr Sampson - he makes the list again as this is when he truly came out, and this rating is pretty spot on.

2013
26 - Rysheed Jordan - Proving his value there, and maybe a bit underrated when looking back.

So I'd say it's been pretty hit or miss when it comes to looking at whether our dudes have panned out. Phil Greene was not highly touted and did not make any RSCI lists.

These evaluations all seem pretty acurate to me, but the issue isn't whether or not our recruits have lived up to their ranking. They don't play as a team. That can work against Bucknell. In the BE doesn't work. DePaul is nowhere near as gifted as us. They made the extra pass. Yes, they had a lucky bounce or two, but our one on one hot dog crap killed us Tues night.

Mahoney's teams had an every man for himself plan of attack. He was even worse than Lavin.

Quote from: desco80 on January 16, 2014, 04:32:31 PM

Stop.  You're playing an angle that you would find infuriating if someone else used it to make their argument.  You're presenting cumulative stats as proof of one player's value over another, when the time periods of accumulation are far from comparable.

I can't find any source that tracked minutes played going back that far, but I can't imagine that WIllie Glass as a soph and junior was playing 32mins and taking 14 shots a game.   And Jones's soph year he had Glass and Berry ahead of him at forward.   
They simply didn't have the opportunities Sampson has had to accumulate stats.

But even beyond the strict numerical comparison, Sampson's defense and role in the offense has been a disappointment this year.   A BE ROY shouldn't be as suspect as he is defensively, nor should he still be a blackhole when he receives the ball.   Part of the evaluation has to be qualitative.  And Sampson has failed the eye test this season so far

His rebounding could be better, but not much - he's a couple per game off Walter Berry, who was about the best rebounder SJ has ever had.

So Sampson is almost as good of a rebounder as Walter Berry because Sampson's rebound average is a couple per game off Walter Berry's average? Its almost like saying that someone who sits in a room that is 125 degrees and then sits in another room that is 25 degrees is comfortable because the average room temperature is 75 degrees. It only makes sense to use averages when it makes sense. The ball has to fall in someone hands through out the course of a game, it just so happens to fall in Sampsons hands 6 times a game. You have to judge the players base on what you actually see them doing on the court, not simply by throwing out numbers. Sampson is not a good rebounder.

Quote from: Foad on January 16, 2014, 05:05:44 PM

Quote from: desco80 on January 16, 2014, 04:32:31 PM

Stop.  You're playing an angle that you would find infuriating if someone else used it to make their argument.  You're presenting cumulative stats as proof of one player's value over another, when the time periods of accumulation are far from comparable.

I can't find any source that tracked minutes played going back that far, but I can't imagine that WIllie Glass as a soph and junior was playing 32mins and taking 14 shots a game.   And Jones's soph year he had Glass and Berry ahead of him at forward.   
They simply didn't have the opportunities Sampson has had to accumulate stats.

But even beyond the strict numerical comparison, Sampson's defense and role in the offense has been a disappointment this year.   A BE ROY shouldn't be as suspect as he is defensively, nor should he still be a blackhole when he receives the ball.   Part of the evaluation has to be qualitative.  And Sampson has failed the eye test this season so far

His rebounding could be better, but not much - he's a couple per game off Walter Berry, who was about the best rebounder SJ has ever had.

So Sampson is almost as good of a rebounder as Walter Berry because Sampson's rebound average is a couple per game off Walter Berry's average? Its almost like saying that someone who sits in a room that is 125 degrees and then sits in another room that is 25 degrees is comfortable because the average room temperature is 75 degrees. It only makes sense to use averages when it makes sense. The ball has to fall in someone hands through out the course of a game, it just so happens to fall in Sampsons hands 6 times a game. You have to judge the players base on what you actually see them doing on the court, not simply by throwing out numbers. Sampson is not a good rebounder.

No hes not. Whats worse is that its one of the best things about his game. Terrible terrible defender, awful shot selection, great athleticism.

The problem here is systemic. It's not the players and it's certainly not one player.

This, is everything you need to know about the 2013-2014 St Johns basketball team.

 

SJUFAN you state the next 2 years will prove if Lavin can have sustained success. Don't you need to have success first before you can have sustained success?