Missing Pieces Longer term

Dom was just a little better last year than  before.

Quote from: Moose on December 01, 2015, 03:29:06 PM

Time for the reminder that most posters don't have an issue with Phil Greene.

Its the posters who have an issue with the posters who are fundraising for his statue in front of Carnesecca Arena

I think the same can be said about why some of us support him. He was a scapegoat here and that is not fair because he played hurt and out of position for a coach that wasn't exactly known as a tactician. He was a four-year player who played hard and was a model student-athlete who played above his ranking and improved evey year.  And he single-handedly beat Cuse.

People support him because he was the lowest ranked player of the heralded class.

Quote from: Foad on December 01, 2015, 05:27:54 PM

Quote from: Poison on December 01, 2015, 03:17:09 PM

Yea, but that's 1st in Big East games. How did he do against the non conference cup cakes because that's what we should pick on him for.

I don't know what those are but they're not BE season statistics. Unless you think Phil Greene confined himself to 44 3-point attempts in 20 league games. These are presumably the correct statistics, being provided by a respected publication or on a website of note to the sport after all.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/conferences/statistics/player/_/id/4/stat/3-points/year/2015/big-east-conference

Those stats don't break up conference and non conference games.

It's weird how you get to rely on fraudulent statistics to buttress your vague memories of what you recollect might have happened and I have to prove every minor statement, preferably with footnotes. Good thing I don't mind rubbing your face in it.

Greene was 43 for 109 in the BE. That's 39 percent, pretty much exactly where he was on the year. Take away the four BE games where he made shots - he was 19 for 33 in 4 games -  that makes him 24 of 80 ** in the remaining 15. Therefore he shot 30 percent from three in 80 percent of his games. Which is nearly exactly what he did for the year. Because he was a bad shooter most of the time.

** This should be 24 of 76, 31. 5 percent, I wouldn't want to cheat him.

Quote from: Poison on December 01, 2015, 06:04:33 PM

Quote from: Foad on December 01, 2015, 05:27:54 PM

Quote from: Poison on December 01, 2015, 03:17:09 PM

Yea, but that's 1st in Big East games. How did he do against the non conference cup cakes because that's what we should pick on him for.

I don't know what those are but they're not BE season statistics. Unless you think Phil Greene confined himself to 44 3-point attempts in 20 league games. These are presumably the correct statistics, being provided by a respected publication or on a website of note to the sport after all.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/conferences/statistics/player/_/id/4/stat/3-points/year/2015/big-east-conference

Those stats don't break up conference and non conference games.

It's weird how you get to rely on fraudulent statistics to buttress your vague memories of what you recollect might have happened and I have to prove every minor statement, preferably with footnotes. Good thing I don't mind rubbing your face in it.

Greene was 43 for 109 in the BE. That's 39 percent, pretty much exactly where he was on the year. Take away the four BE games where he made shots - he was 19 for 33 in 4 games -  that makes him 24 of 80 ** in the remaining 15. Therefore he shot 30 percent from three in 80 percent of his games. Which is nearly exactly what he did for the year. Because he was a bad shooter most of the time.

** This should be 24 of 76, 31. 5 percent, I wouldn't want to cheat him.

3-POINT FG PCT    Cl    GP    3FG    3FGA    Pct
1.    GREENE IV, Phil-SJU    SR    18    44    96    .458
2.    BARLOW, Alex-BU    SR    18    36    79    .456
3.    KREKLOW, Rick-CU    SR    17    33    73    .452
4.    ABELL, Remy-XU    JR    18    23    51    .451
5.    ARCIDIACONO, Ryan-VU    JR    18    40    90    .444
6.    SMITH-RIVERA, D.-GU    JR    17    46    108    .426
7.    GIBBS, Sterling-SHU    JR    16    47    112    .420
8.    HART, Josh-VU    SO    18    28    67    .418
9.    HILLIARD, Darrun-VU    SR    18    48    116    .414
10.    CARLINO, Matt-MU    SR    14    48    120    .400
   DUNHAM, Kellen-BU    JR    18    40    100    .400
12.    JORDAN, Rysheed-SJU    SO    17    27    69    .391
13.    HARRISON, D'Angelo-SJU    SR    18    39    100    .390
14.    JENKINS, Kris-VU    SO    18    23    59    .390
15.    TRAWICK, Jabril-GU    SR    18    20    52    .385

Quote from: Poison on December 01, 2015, 06:04:33 PM

Quote from: Foad on December 01, 2015, 05:27:54 PM

Quote from: Poison on December 01, 2015, 03:17:09 PM

Yea, but that's 1st in Big East games. How did he do against the non conference cup cakes because that's what we should pick on him for.

I don't know what those are but they're not BE season statistics. Unless you think Phil Greene confined himself to 44 3-point attempts in 20 league games. These are presumably the correct statistics, being provided by a respected publication or on a website of note to the sport after all.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/conferences/statistics/player/_/id/4/stat/3-points/year/2015/big-east-conference

Those stats don't break up conference and non conference games.

It's weird how you get to rely on fraudulent statistics to buttress your vague memories of what you recollect might have happened and I have to prove every minor statement, preferably with footnotes. Good thing I don't mind rubbing your face in it.

Greene was 43 for 109 in the BE. That's 39 percent, pretty much exactly where he was on the year. Take away the four BE games where he made shots - he was 19 for 33 in 4 games -  that makes him 24 of 80 ** in the remaining 15. Therefore he shot 30 percent from three in 80 percent of his games. Which is nearly exactly what he did for the year. Because he was a bad shooter most of the time.

** This should be 24 of 76, 31. 5 percent, I wouldn't want to cheat him.

Rub your face in this: Phil Greene was 44 for 96 in BE play from behind the arc last year. That equals a clip of .458 which was good for #1 in the BE conference.
I said that he was a terrific role player last season. I stand by that.

As the kids like to say, you've just been served. I don't know where you grabbed 43 for 109, but your math is incorrect.

Rub your face in this: Phil Greene was 44 for 96 in BE play from behind the arc last year. That equals a clip of .458 which was good for #1 in the BE conference. I said that he was a terrific role player last season. I stand by that.

As the kids like to say, you've just been served. I don't know where you grabbed 43 for 109, but your math is incorrect.

Leaving aside your terrific retreat - PG has gone from one of the "best role players in the nation" who made threes at a terrific clip to a terrific role player, if terrific is measured by how he played against Seton Hall and DePaul as opposed to Duke and San Diego State - these are his 3 pt stats from BE games according to CBS.

3-7 seton hall
2-5 butler
2-7 vilanova
5-8 providence
1-4 depaul
1-5 marquette
2-3 creighton
1-4 providence
2-3 butler
1-2 creighton
1-2 depaul
3-8 xavier
4-8 g'town
4-8 seton hall
1-4 xavier
6-7 gtown
3-7 marquette
2-4 nova
2-7 providence

46 /103 = 44 percent

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/phil-greene-1/gamelog/2015/

My math was correct if you factor in my BAC. You otoh seem to be omitting the BE tournament, which I thought for a butch NY'er such as yourself who thinks everyone is a sissy the post season would be the true test of Phil's manhood. Oh, well. I remember well those days when you were what your record said you were. Now you are what your record says you are in some games against some opponents on some nights during a quarter of your playing career at one thing. Thus I have been served and Phil Greene is shown to be one of "the best ...players in the nation." Lulz.

Quote from: Poison on December 02, 2015, 12:20:35 AM

Rub your face in this: Phil Greene was 44 for 96 in BE play from behind the arc last year. That equals a clip of .458 which was good for #1 in the BE conference. I said that he was a terrific role player last season. I stand by that.

As the kids like to say, you've just been served. I don't know where you grabbed 43 for 109, but your math is incorrect.

Leaving aside your terrific retreat - PG has gone from one of the "best role players in the nation" who made threes at a terrific clip to a terrific role player, if terrific is measured by how he played against Seton Hall and DePaul as opposed to Duke and San Diego State - these are his 3 pt stats from BE games according to CBS.

3-7 seton hall
2-5 butler
2-7 vilanova
5-8 providence
1-4 depaul
1-5 marquette
2-3 creighton
1-4 providence
2-3 butler
1-2 creighton
1-2 depaul
3-8 xavier
4-8 g'town
4-8 seton hall
1-4 xavier
6-7 gtown
3-7 marquette
2-4 nova
2-7 providence

46 /103 = 44 percent

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/phil-greene-1/gamelog/2015/

My math was correct if you factor in my BAC. You otoh seem to be omitting the BE tournament, which I thought for a butch NY'er such as yourself who thinks everyone is a sissy the post season would be the true test of Phil's manhood. Oh, well. I remember well those days when you were what your record said you were. Now you are what your record says you are in some games against some opponents on some nights during a quarter of your playing career at one thing. Thus I have been served and Phil Greene is shown to be one of "the best ...players in the nation."

That's the great thing about math. There's a right answer, and there's a wrong one. You, obviously, we're wrong. And you're taking it pretty hard. Try apologizing for your obnoxious attacks, and admit it. It won't kill you.

Phil Greene was one of the best role players in the nation last year. L
Leading a high major conference in 3 point percentage proves that, but have it. Find holes in my logic. No one else can, or wants to bother trying, but you're really great at this.

BTW, nice work pointing out PG's success against Duke and SDS. Conveniently, you left out Gonzaga, Syracuse and  Georgetown. It's just another point that you think you've made, but didn't. Like I said, you've been served. Twice now.

Fun fact: Phil Greene shot 10 for 15 from 3 against the Hoyas last year.

...or at least to a different topic.....than one about missing pieces/longer term.

Perhaps Phil Greene is the missing piece. 😉

Do you guys know what you're doing to poor Carmine?

https://youtu.be/tCtYuARcQPg

Quote from: hnk on December 01, 2015, 10:45:20 AM

...or at least to a different topic.....than one about missing pieces/longer term.

Perhaps Phil Greene is the missing piece. 😉

I was the first to bring up Greene, so this was my fault. This team could use a 3 star guard who could handle the ball, who is a little taller, and  stronger. So yes a player like Phil Greene, but more of a PG.

That's the great thing about math. There's a right answer, and there's a wrong one. You, obviously, we're wrong. And you're taking it pretty hard. Try apologizing for your obnoxious attacks, and admit it. It won't kill you.

Phil Greene was one of the best role players in the nation last year. L
Leading a high major conference in 3 point percentage proves that, but have it. Find holes in my logic. No one else can, or wants to bother trying, but you're really great at this.

BTW, nice work pointing out PG's success against Duke and SDS. Conveniently, you left out Gonzaga, Syracuse and  Georgetown. It's just another point that you think you've made, but didn't. Like I said, you've been served. Twice now.

I'm happy to admit that Phil Greene shot better than I thought he did in the BE as a senior. I was frankly pretty surprised when I went back and looked, because I assumed he stunk his entire career, whereas he only stunk for 80 percent of it. I'll also cop to the math error, but in my defense I was pretty faced. You're lucky I didn't count the 1's as 11's.

As for Phil Greene being a fine "role player," it's just a shame that he was a role player while starting at shooting guard. Perhaps if Saint John's had had a legitimate shooting guard and Phil was in fact a role player they might have won more than a single post season game during his fabulous 4 year career. Oh well, at least they beat Syracuse that one time in December, because that's what really matters in college basketball, December.

So to recap: Phil didn't guard anyone, he didn't rebound, he didn't pass and over the course of his career the one thing he did while playing the role of shooting guard he did not do too very well, having ended his career as a 32 percent shooter from three. Perhaps at least we can agree on that.

I'm sure we can agree that there are some guys on this sight missing a few pieces.

Do you guys know what you're doing to poor Carmine?

https://youtu.be/tCtYuARcQPg

To the contrary,  Doc and Michael are among my favorite posters.  The more posts we get from them, the better.

This exercise has been a marvelous stroll down memory lane.  I would like to thank those that went to bat for my Mfp and even he who played the antagonist.

P.S.
In addition to his famed and widely accepted three point shooting prowess, I recall that the Triangle had a great handle; played hurt; never turned the ball over;  had a great asst/to ratio; was an outstanding defender; and on occasion threw down a highlight reel dunk even though he was our shortest player.

He also was quite good looking.

So next year basically our three best players will be point guards but people want another point guard who is taller?
Point guards in college don't post up smaller guards. We need better bigs going forward, point guard is set.

Phil Greene was a fine role player. He was one of the worst point guards we ever had however.

I think it would be good to have both....agree priority should be a wide body.  Let me put it this way: going forward the ideal situation is not to have all little point guards.

This exercise has been a marvelous stroll down memory lane.  I would like to thank those that went to bat for my Mfp and even he who played the antagonist.

P.S.
In addition to his famed and widely accepted three point shooting prowess, I recall that the Triangle had a great handle; played hurt; never turned the ball over;  had a great asst/to ratio; was an outstanding defender; and on occasion threw down a highlight reel dunk even though he was our shortest player.

He also was quite good looking.

Your last line finally gets to the bottom of your PG IV love affair. Not that there is anything wrong with that! 

I think it would be good to have both....agree priority should be a wide body.  Let me put it this way: going forward the ideal situation is not to have all little point guards.

Who are some taller PG's in college you like?