A Fair Comparison?

[idhoya]

In my never ending attempt to spark meaningful, thought-provoking and insightful discussion on curent and past Hoyas, here's my first one today:

Mark Tillmon vs. Austin Freeman

[hoyasexy]

Good comparison. Similar games, similar bodies. Both had/have good perimeter games, but could/can take it to the hoop. I think Tillmon was more athletic (at least before the foot injury), but Freeman has a little more strength.

I'd go with Tillmon, but obviously Freeman has time to make up the difference. That said, Tillmon takes the tie-breaker by being a Gonzaga man.

[Deleted]

Allen Iverson v. Dean Berry : Battle of the Crossover Kings!

[Fan Of The Game]

My ankles are still sore from Berry breaking them at Yates.

[Hordac]

Mark Tillmon got better each year during his Georgetown tenure. If Austin progresses at the same rate, I don't think that there will be any debate as to who the better player is/was.

[RDF]

I don't see any comparison other then what HS conference they played in--Freeman is a 6'4 power guard--and Tillmon was always an athletic/undersized 2G.

Why is it that in the older games--guys seemed to be faster as a team? I mean it seemed these guys really could run together and get up and down court in a hurry?

Also--I've got to point out a few things that I loved seeing which contributed to this pace by teams involved--they got the ball in quickly after made hoops--no stupid "Designated inbounds guy" which delays the game/you lose seconds in a game and that hurts later in a game simply due to fact you had to have the 4 inbound instead of the guy who has the damn ball. Get the friggin ball and get it into play ASAP.

[DudeSlade]

Jul 8, 2008 12:43:28 GMT -5 RDF said:

Why is it that in the older games--guys seemed to be faster as a team? I mean it seemed these guys really could run together and get up and down court in a hurry?

My initial thought was that there are bigger players now with more strength training who take longer to get up and down the court. Then I realized that was hogwash. The Showtime Lakers, the 80s Celtics, even a young Shaq, Ewing, etc. ran plenty up and down the court and were as big as anyone today.

I have to think its the issue of control. In all of our team sports nowadays, there is a lot more control by coaches. You watch football and you can hardly call an audible without a coach telling you. In baseball, coaches are often sending in the pitches from the bench. Even in soccer, the ultimate player sport, Americans have tried to control the game more from the sidelines including creating "plays" for certain situations, rather than keeping it fluid and allowing creativity. In basketball, it has shown itself in the coaches calling plays or trying to slow the tempo, ala the Princeton offense, and therefore, players slowing to receive instructions or follow previously given instructions instead of pushing the opportunities available. The NBA has instituted a lot of rules to try to create more offense (the hand-checking rule is one that comes to mind), but they didn't have that problem in the 80s. Magic, Bird, Isaiah, et al. directed their teams and were brilliant in doing so. Now, it seems that coaches have tried to control that brilliant creativity out of players for fear of making mistakes. Exhibit A is the Jason Kidd experiment in Dallas--sure, Kidd's lost a step, but Avery Johnson's extreme control of his team had to have quashed some of the autonomous creativity that Dallas was seeking from Kidd when they traded for him.

Then again, as a player, I always preferred more autonomy on the field, so I was never fond of controlling coaches and officials, who I believe just interfere with those actually playing the game. What do you all think, is there any validity to that thought process or is it just some of my bias creeping out here?

[RDF]

Jul 8, 2008 12:59:37 GMT -5 DudeSlade said:

Jul 8, 2008 12:43:28 GMT -5 RDF said:

Why is it that in the older games--guys seemed to be faster as a team? I mean it seemed these guys really could run together and get up and down court in a hurry?

My initial thought was that there are bigger players now with more strength training who take longer to get up and down the court. Then I realized that was hogwash. The Showtime Lakers, the 80s Celtics, even a young Shaq, Ewing, etc. ran plenty up and down the court and were as big as anyone today.

I have to think its the issue of control. In all of our team sports nowadays, there is a lot more control by coaches. You watch football and you can hardly call an audible without a coach telling you. In baseball, coaches are often sending in the pitches from the bench. Even in soccer, the ultimate player sport, Americans have tried to control the game more from the sidelines including creating "plays" for certain situations, rather than keeping it fluid and allowing creativity. In basketball, it has shown itself in the coaches calling plays or trying to slow the tempo, ala the Princeton offense, and therefore, players slowing to receive instructions or follow previously given instructions instead of pushing the opportunities available. The NBA has instituted a lot of rules to try to create more offense (the hand-checking rule is one that comes to mind), but they didn't have that problem in the 80s. Magic, Bird, Isaiah, et al. directed their teams and were brilliant in doing so. Now, it seems that coaches have tried to control that brilliant creativity out of players for fear of making mistakes. Exhibit A is the Jason Kidd experiment in Dallas--sure, Kidd's lost a step, but Avery Johnson's extreme control of his team had to have quashed some of the autonomous creativity that Dallas was seeking from Kidd when they traded for him.

Then again, as a player, I always preferred more autonomy on the field, so I was never fond of controlling coaches and officials, who I believe just interfere with those actually playing the game. What do you all think, is there any validity to that thought process or is it just some of my bias creeping out here?

GREAT POINT--that is one of the best points brought up. Outstanding post Dude--and I'm with you--it's about the people on the court/field of play--not the people who coach them. Coaches are there to make adjustments--but the gameplan should've been put in in practices/prep--not the over-control of the game. Mistakes will happen--but it's the type of mistakes and if they are self imposed or created by opposing team? Let guys play--LET THEM PLAY!!! (where's William Devane and Bad News Bears when you need them?)

[idhoya]

I'm a Tillmon fan, but Austin is coming on.

[MCIGuy]

Jul 8, 2008 12:59:37 GMT -5 DudeSlade said:

Jul 8, 2008 12:43:28 GMT -5 RDF said:

Why is it that in the older games--guys seemed to be faster as a team? I mean it seemed these guys really could run together and get up and down court in a hurry?

My initial thought was that there are bigger players now with more strength training who take longer to get up and down the court. Then I realized that was hogwash. The Showtime Lakers, the 80s Celtics, even a young Shaq, Ewing, etc. ran plenty up and down the court and were as big as anyone today.

Not too long ago JA Adande was on JT's show and mentioned how in between covering the finals between the Lakers and Celtics he was checking out the classic games involving Showtime Lakers and noticed how Magic was always pushing the ball up the floor. And that Lakers team was taller than the average NBA team today.

[idhoya]

Cause Magic was taller than any point ever. Your right though, they got the ball in and Earvin was always puttin pressure on the defense. Denver does that with AI, but they fail to get back on D more than any team, so I guess they cancel each other out.

[MCIGuy]

Jul 8, 2008 9:44:58 GMT -5 idhoya said:

In my never ending attempt to spark meaningful, thought-provoking and insightful discussion on curent and past Hoyas, here's my first one today:

Mark Tillmon vs. Austin Freeman

Tillmon was better at dribbling early on.

I like Freeman better at everything else. Especially finishing in the paint.

[aggypryd]

I don't know, Dude.

I was watching the ESPN special "Black Magic", and Ben Jobe, Avery Johnson's former coach at Southern, mentioned that when Avery came out of college the NBA scouts thought he had too much 'Sauce' in his game, and maybe wasn't ready for the NBA. I find it hard to believe that Avery would want to handcuff another player's creativity. Personally, I think getting rid of Devin Harris was the dumbest move they made.

But I agree. Coaches are definitely doing more micro-managing.

[idhoya]

I think it should be a requirement for every new person/poster to the board to read DFW's breakdown of the top 50 Hoyas. Not only is it insightful, its also fun to look back at; especially at the pre-Ewing era. Very very good.

[HoyaChris]

Tillmon was also a better on ball defender. Given the systems that they both played in - Tillmon in the chuck and crash system and Austin in a much more controlled environment- they had pretty similar freshman seasons. While I think Austin has a higher upside, I would be pretty happy if he could replicate Mark's 19.2 as a senior.

[aggypryd]

Tillmon had a 'nasty' streak in him. Not dirty, but he played hard and he didn't back down.

[hoyasexy]

Jul 8, 2008 13:24:41 GMT -5 MCIGuy said:

I like Freeman better at everything else. Especially finishing in the paint.

Ask Bimbo Coles how good of a finisher Mark Tillmon was.

[idhoya]

Wow, a Bimbo Coles reference. I guess I have no choice but to throw out a Wally Lancaster!

[FewFAC]

Jul 8, 2008 12:59:37 GMT -5 DudeSlade said:

Jul 8, 2008 12:43:28 GMT -5 RDF said:

Why is it that in the older games--guys seemed to be faster as a team? I mean it seemed these guys really could run together and get up and down court in a hurry?

My initial thought was that there are bigger players now with more strength training who take longer to get up and down the court. Then I realized that was hogwash. The Showtime Lakers, the 80s Celtics, even a young Shaq, Ewing, etc. ran plenty up and down the court and were as big as anyone today.

I have to think its the issue of control. In all of our team sports nowadays, there is a lot more control by coaches. You watch football and you can hardly call an audible without a coach telling you. In baseball, coaches are often sending in the pitches from the bench. Even in soccer, the ultimate player sport, Americans have tried to control the game more from the sidelines including creating "plays" for certain situations, rather than keeping it fluid and allowing creativity. In basketball, it has shown itself in the coaches calling plays or trying to slow the tempo, ala the Princeton offense, and therefore, players slowing to receive instructions or follow previously given instructions instead of pushing the opportunities available. The NBA has instituted a lot of rules to try to create more offense (the hand-checking rule is one that comes to mind), but they didn't have that problem in the 80s. Magic, Bird, Isaiah, et al. directed their teams and were brilliant in doing so. Now, it seems that coaches have tried to control that brilliant creativity out of players for fear of making mistakes. Exhibit A is the Jason Kidd experiment in Dallas--sure, Kidd's lost a step, but Avery Johnson's extreme control of his team had to have quashed some of the autonomous creativity that Dallas was seeking from Kidd when they traded for him.

Then again, as a player, I always preferred more autonomy on the field, so I was never fond of controlling coaches and officials, who I believe just interfere with those actually playing the game. What do you all think, is there any validity to that thought process or is it just some of my bias creeping out here?

I understand what you are saying, but I blame the Bill James' of the world for statistifying (yes) sports. One of the biggest things in basketball since the takeover of the front office stats-jocks is the possession, and ever since someone discovered they could play more talented teams more evenly by reducing the number of possessions in games, basketball has been in a state of freefall. Next comes plugging players into defined statistical roles and hoping that chemistry meshes.

I think there are a lot of players who front offices fall in love with, regardless of whether they are actually positive forces in leading their teams to victories, and it is easy to create statistical cases for sticking with them. And I don't think the coaches on the bench are necessarily responsible for this, but in fact are victims, because suddenly they have players who may fit a defined spreadsheet cell well but not a lane on the court. Because the players don't fill that lane well, coaches are forced to micromanage to justify their own existence.

And don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the Pomeroys of the world, but athletes aren't robots, and expecting them to play like they are robots eliminates a lot of the joy from seeing them perform. In fact, I think a lot of the pressure of expectations to fill certain statistical cells are reasons why players like Austin seem to have a "ceiling" on them that doesn't allow them to play up to their "potential," where you saw players like Tillmon who seemed to play beyond their abilities.

[MCIGuy]

Jul 8, 2008 13:32:07 GMT -5 hoyasexy said:

Jul 8, 2008 13:24:41 GMT -5 MCIGuy said:

I like Freeman better at everything else. Especially finishing in the paint.

Ask Bimbo Coles how good of a finisher Mark Tillmon was.

Yeah, yeah. I love Tillmon. But I have dozens of tapes with games in which he blows layups when a defender is lurking nearby. I do concede that I forgot to point out that Tillmon was better on defense too.