TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 13, 2014 13:33:05 GMT -5
We have only had 5 guys average more than 6 ppg in each of the past six seasons. JT3's first three teams each had 6 guys score more than 6 ppg, but since the class of 2008 graduated, there have only been 5 Hoyas each year that cracked 6 ppg.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Aug 13, 2014 13:58:57 GMT -5
There's absolutely no chance our top three guys -- whoever they are -- average 45 points combined this year. It's only happened once under JTIII. That was with an NBA-ready Greg Monroe, and 2 other McDs AAs having their best seasons on the Hilltop. (Also -- Austin's 2010 season may be the best shooting conf. season in team history) They barely made it, with NO bench. If our top 3 score 45/g, with our presumed depth, we'd easily be a top 5 team. I mean I'm not trying to disagree with you, but keep in mind Josh might have a better college post game than Greg and that DSR has already proven to be a more prolific scorer than Austin. I'm one of the biggest Austin fans there is but if DSR even hovers at the level he's played in the last few years (especially last year) he will easily surpass Austin"a accomplishments. Those two alone should average no less than 30 points between them even with a deeper bench.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,748
|
Post by blueandgray on Aug 13, 2014 14:17:45 GMT -5
My wild stab at scoring averages for the season.....humor me: DSR - 15 ppg Jabril - 13 ppg Josh - 12 ppg LJP - 11 ppg Copeland - 9 ppg Hopkins - 8 ppg Bowen - 7 ppg Cameron - 6 ppg White - 5 ppg Campbell - 4 ppg Hayes - 3 ppg Tre - DNP If we average 93 points per game, I know we are winning the NC! I may have overstated some of the numbers....Porter only scored 9 a game as a frosh and played the 3rd most minutes on the team....to say Copeland will do the same while Peak does more is probably wishful thinking on my part. Campbell at 4 ppg may be on the high side as well....no guarantee he's going to get minutes. This being said, we do have the potential for a high powered offense.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Aug 13, 2014 15:02:41 GMT -5
93 points per game would be pretty great. I think you probably need to trim 20 points from those numbers.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,422
|
Post by MCIGuy on Aug 13, 2014 17:09:28 GMT -5
Oh, jeez, nerd comments. Enjoy your ignorance. Everyone with money on the line in analyzing basketball and actually winning -- from the teams to players to Vegas bookies have embraced the value of analysis at all levels. But you know better. I always enjoy when people are so enthralled with hearing themselves speak they forget to look around see that the world has changed. It's pretty clear that unless he either changes his decision-making so that he's not wasting 3-4 possessions a game by chucking up moronic shots or that he's improved to the level that he isn't just giving away the ball half the time he touches, Hopkins belongs backing up Smith. Like it or not, someone with vastly more talent and an actual feel for basketball is going to be taking those minutes, whether it's Paul White or Isaac Copeland. If they can't wrest those minutes away from Hopkins, we're in trouble. It really doesn't matter what you think about who was better for the team offensively, Lubick or Hopkins. Reality is that despite note providing spacing, Lubick's disappearing act didn't keep players like DSR from performing well above average as an offensive player. It didn't help, but it's hard to look at DSR's season and see a ton of upside if he played with a PF who took more shots. Hopkins took shots he had no business taking, shots players like DSR would have made. Lubick wasn't good, but there's no point in "aggression" or "Making people guard you" if the opponent's smartest play is to make you shoot. Hopkins has a ton more potential than Lubick, no doubt, but there's little reason to think that he's getting there. You mock Lubick for refusing to shoot -- he made as many 2pt FGs as Hopkins. He just didn't take 40 shots Hopkins missed. Hopkins did make a couple of threes and went to the line a bit more, but honestly, how do you see that much value in basically providing just a ton more misses? The guy shot 44% on mostly close in shots -- do you think any scouting report was like "Play him tight - don't let him shoot." Any half decent coach was begging them to pass it in and get it out of Markel's or DSR's hands. That said, if this were Lubick v Hopkins, I'm not sure I would care so much. It's not. It's likely versus Isaac Copeland. I know which player I think is going to help us win more this year. Interestingly enough my remarks in this discussion never stooped to name-calling like “nerds” or even deriding those who live by these numbers/stats. Rather I commented that you guys can toss that stuff around all you want but it doesn’t tell the whole story, never has told the whole story and never will tell the whole story. For you to get angry about it and start sniping at me reveals more about you than it does me. I’ll get back to that in a moment. As for the numbers themselves no one is denying they have their place. No one is denying that people in all course of life use statistics. To even toss that suggestion out there into the conversation is nothing more than a strawman tactic. Instead I’ve consistently argued that numbers, depending on the topic, can’t always be accepted at face value. Example : you can have a center that shoots 59% and a center that shoot 48%. Let’s say the points they score on average are roughly the same. From that it would appear the first center that shoots the higher percentage is not only more efficient but the superior offensive player, right? Maybe not if the first center is being assisted on 70% of his baskets while the other center is only being assisted on 40% or less of his. By being better assisted that means the guy shooting a higher percentage has the benefit of teammates CREATING more opportunities for him for easy, probably more point blank buckets . The guy who is shooting 48% has to rely on creating more of his own opportunities because less than half of his scoring comes as a direct result of an assist. The obvious reason for this may simply be that the first guy has teammates who are superior at driving, drawing and dishing than the other guy’s teammates. The other guy has to display more moves and make more “contested” baskets on his own to get the same amount of points. By having to create more could lead to him turning the ball over more too. And despite all of that he still could be the better offensive player even though the FG% and turnover rate stats say otherwise. He could still be better because he is more capable at creating a scoring opportunity for himself in the halfcourt. No, this has nothing to do with Hopkins and Lubick or anyone on Georgetown. They were on the same team and therefore had the same players creating for them. And obviously when comparing Lubick and Hopkins we are not relying only on a single stat. However the fg% comparison I used above is an example of how stats can be deployed in a misleading way. The earliest I can recall the whole stat craze making its way into NBA discussions is during the latter half of Iverson’s career. Proponents of such stats-driven data loved to label Iverson as overrated because he took too many shots for them, didn’t make nearly enough, and turned over the ball too often for their tastes. There was some truth to this. Iverson was far from perfect and the total opposite of efficient. But those stats never told the whole story. Stats don’t take into consideration that Iverson was almost always the smallest person on the court and had to get his jumpshots over taller defenders or get his layups by scoring over trees in the paint. So why did he take such difficult shots? Because for most of his career (Philly days) he was the lone capable option on offense. The only one who could create for himself and others on a regular basis. The only one on his Philly teams that defenses had to even worry about. Yeah, a guy like that was never going to be highly efficient. Didn’t help that he always didn’t play smart basketball. Still would you judge a player like Iverson based on his some efficiency chart? How does that account for his will, drive, toughness, competitiveness? How does it measure his heart? Last I checked such characteristics aren’t measured on any chart but without them you didn’t get the whole story of Iverson. Teammates like Eric Snow and Kevin Ollie (just tossing out names) may have been efficient kings compared to AI, but did it make them better? Put aside the stats book for awhile and just do an eye test. And it was because of this discrepancy between what the efficiency stats said about Iverson and what Iverson actually meant to his teams, that I started to cast a somewhat suspicious eye on anyone who uses that stuff exclusively when judging a player. I do respect stats and rely on them to make my own basketball-related determinations when all things else are equal. But I don’t automatically assume they are the final word, not when it comes to sports and there are non-mathematical variables to consider. And I have to say of the numerous bball message boards (college and pro) I do visit, even the other Hoya sites, this is the only one where such a large selection of the members seem to completely embrace info such as adjusted offensive efficiency as if it is the final say on everything. Hell, this is the only site that regularly brings it up. I suppose many of you would take that as a badge of honor and view that as proof of the higher intelligence of Gtown fans and/or alum. And that’s fine. But I do feel rating anything basketball related is more than just numbers crunching. However if some people here are going to be essentially intolerant to any opinion that may not be perfectly aligned with what the stats say then we will continue to have some unnecessary chippy debates. How about respecting a difference of an opinion? Now with that off my chest let me get to the bone I have to pick with you. You got issues. Anger issues. It taints virtually every post of yours directed at others and me in particular when you really disagree with our views. “Enjoy your ignorance”; “when people are enthralled with hearing themselves speak”, etc. You don’t care for a debate as much as you like putting people down. I won’t argue that I’m disagreeable at times and opinionated, but what I try never to resort to is unwarranted remarks that are nasty and dismissive in tone. We had this “discussion” before in which I told you if you ever want to have a conversation with me to clear the air or lay into me about saying something that was out of bounds then by all means you can send me a PM. Just try keeping that nonsense off the board. But you keep doing what you do because apparently you like it. And you know the moderators will allow you to get away with it even though they warn virtually everyone else to adhere by the forum’s policies. When I disagree with your take I tend to write remarks limited to what I find wrong about your point of view. When you disagree with me often it leads to you remarking about what you find wrong with me. Big difference. I laugh when you have the nerve to even write the whole some people like to hear themselves speak nonsense? Do you ever go back and check out your own posts once you let them loose on the world? You keep talking and talking and talking in what ultimately end up as your own personal testaments of how brilliant your point of view is and how dumb are those with an opposite point of view. There’s a word for what you do: projection. You accuse others of all the sins that you are even more guilty of. I get we all have our bad days, that sometimes because of life we find ourselves in bad moods. But you take it too far. I have an immediate family member who was diagnosed with ALS a few months back. It has made me a bit bitter and mad at the world on the occasion. Yet I have enough common sense and decency to try not to take it out on anyone on a ::bleep:: message board. So I must wonder what the hell is on your plate to make you so eager to spread your venom at a moment’s notice. The solution is so easy for you. If you are unable to keep your dislike of me out of your remarks you can ignore me and my remarks entirely. Forever. It’s actually that simple. This too I have suggested in the past. Put me on ignore. But what fun would that be if you can’t get in the last zing, right? Might as well refer to you as Last Word SFHoya because if you ain’t getting the last comment in any disagreement you find yourself in (or create unnecessarily) then apparently all’s not right with your world. That may be a tacky thing for me to say but that’s basically the gist of what I have to deal with every time you take pleasure in making me your whipping boy. With that said I can move on from this and try to continue a respectful discussion/disagreement regarding this whole Lubick-Hopkins thing. Because to me at least it isn’t personal. And most importantly considering everything else that is going on right now with me, it definitely isn’t that serious. If you want to respond respectfully or if you want to ignore me altogether then that’s fine with me. It's up to you. But spare me your abrasive rebuttals. My arguments have never been about whether Lubick’s passivity hurt or helped DSR’s game. That’s irrelevant. I have argued that his refusal to look for his offense hurt the team. And that is a far bigger issue. His inability/unwillingness to develop offensive ability during four years is one reason why the team failed to reach certain heights but experienced a number of lows over his four years. This wasn’t the sole reason of course but it played a huge part. Here’s a guy who based upon his high school credentials was going to provide the Hoyas an inside scoring presence, someone who you could easily imagine scoring about 12 points per game his final two years. Was that too much to ask for a guy who was a starter in the Hoyas’ lineup for three years? If one wants to claim that wasn’t his mentality I have to ask wasn’t it his responsibility though? When dudes left early for the draft, got suspended, got injured, did Lubick at any time step up his game and try to make up the difference like an upperclassmen should? No, he remained a guy who looked more to deliver backdoor passes than needed buckets. If the defense is that he wasn’t a good enough to do this my question is where was the off-season work ethic by him to be at least an adequate postup guy? Should we give him a pass for not taking bad shots as a result of his never working on his game enough to be able to turn those into good/makeable shots? As for the whole taking away shots from DSR and Starks...if you think Lubick taking a couple extra shots per contest would have been detrimental well that sounds like crazy talk. First of all if he is so efficient as you claim then don’t you want him taking a couple of more attempts regardless? I mean who cares if he takes away from our two starting guards if they weren’t as efficient as him anyway, right? But of course what this says is that we all realize his efficiency numbers were not close to being an accurate portrayal of what he was as a player and therefore should be thrown out of the argument in the first place. Despite all of this when Lubick actually took that hook shot he was good at making it. And if being a threat to take such a shot meant that defenses had to concentrate on him just a bit more, wouldn’t that possibly have opened a things a little more for Starks and DSR? Maybe both could have scored as many points on less attempts simply because they had some help in the scoring department. And that's what Starks and DSR desperately needed last season. Help. The truth of the matter that once Greg was off the team for good, once Joshua was suspended and once Jabril was injured, the guards needed someone to step up. Lubick shrank from that opportunity, hell, he didn’t even try. He instead continued to float on the perimeter where he was even less of a threat to score than Hopkins was. This is not to suggest Hopkins was reliable either. He tends to have a terrific game in which he surprises you with what he can do followed by four games of ineptness. But I think people who have gone after Hopkins in a critical way have often given Lubick a free pass. But what really irritates me is this notion that Hopkins took too many shots. He was the team’s starting center and took 5 shots a game. Even with his below average field goal percentage what decent team could not deal with that? Five shots are such a big deal or are five shots only such a big deal in a tightly controlled offense in which possessions are limited (although some fans here claim that the offense was not like that last season)? If a team can’t afford a starter taking five shots a game then maybe something is wrong with the way the team plays. There were teams that went to the NCAA last season that must have had inefficient starters who jacked up at least five attempts a game. But if it happens on the Hoyas it is a recipe for disaster? Are we arguing that most of those shots should have gone to DSR and Starks instead? Wouldn’t that have made the burden greater for them? It seems that some of you tend to view Hopkins as selfish for taking shots because you may believe that any inefficient shooter who looks to score is selfish by nature. But is it any less selfish to run away from the burden of getting buckets when needed. Can’t Hopkins be credited at least for being aggressive even if he messed up badly in the process? I'd admire the guy who at least tries to step up where needed even if he fails at it over the guy who tends to play it safe and stays away from taking on the responsibility at all. Gratuitous military metaphor : if I’m in the foxhole it doesn’t matter if I’m the best shot, I’m not making it out of there alive if my fellow soldiers are too timid to even contemplate emptying their chambers. Even if their aim is awful I want my guys to at least be a threat to shoot the enemy. By the way I’d like to point out that I’m not championing that Hopkins starts ahead of Copeland. I was championing putting Peak in the starting lineup over Copeland if it came down between those two.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Aug 13, 2014 17:29:26 GMT -5
You've got to be joking. You must be describing yourself.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 13, 2014 17:38:14 GMT -5
There's absolutely no chance our top three guys -- whoever they are -- average 45 points combined this year. It's only happened once under JTIII. That was with an NBA-ready Greg Monroe, and 2 other McDs AAs having their best seasons on the Hilltop. (Also -- Austin's 2010 season may be the best shooting conf. season in team history) They barely made it, with NO bench. If our top 3 score 45/g, with our presumed depth, we'd easily be a top 5 team. My wild stab at scoring averages for the season.....humor me: DSR - 15 ppg Jabril - 13 ppg Josh - 12 ppg LJP - 11 ppg Copeland - 9 ppg Hopkins - 8 ppg Bowen - 7 ppg Cameron - 6 ppg White - 5 ppg Campbell - 4 ppg Hayes - 3 ppg Tre - DNP I have to admit, I have no idea what the point distribution will be. But I think it will more concentrated than the above. DSR and Josh will average more, but the end of the bench -- whoever it is -- simply won't average what you have. Nine through 11 aren't averaging 12 ppg and honestly 6, 7 and 8 aren't likely getting the minutes to put in 21 ppg, either. Did any team in basketball get 33 ppg from their bench?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,861
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 13, 2014 18:57:48 GMT -5
Oh, jeez, nerd comments. Enjoy your ignorance. Everyone with money on the line in analyzing basketball and actually winning -- from the teams to players to Vegas bookies have embraced the value of analysis at all levels. But you know better. I always enjoy when people are so enthralled with hearing themselves speak they forget to look around see that the world has changed. It's pretty clear that unless he either changes his decision-making so that he's not wasting 3-4 possessions a game by chucking up moronic shots or that he's improved to the level that he isn't just giving away the ball half the time he touches, Hopkins belongs backing up Smith. Like it or not, someone with vastly more talent and an actual feel for basketball is going to be taking those minutes, whether it's Paul White or Isaac Copeland. If they can't wrest those minutes away from Hopkins, we're in trouble. It really doesn't matter what you think about who was better for the team offensively, Lubick or Hopkins. Reality is that despite note providing spacing, Lubick's disappearing act didn't keep players like DSR from performing well above average as an offensive player. It didn't help, but it's hard to look at DSR's season and see a ton of upside if he played with a PF who took more shots. Hopkins took shots he had no business taking, shots players like DSR would have made. Lubick wasn't good, but there's no point in "aggression" or "Making people guard you" if the opponent's smartest play is to make you shoot. Hopkins has a ton more potential than Lubick, no doubt, but there's little reason to think that he's getting there. You mock Lubick for refusing to shoot -- he made as many 2pt FGs as Hopkins. He just didn't take 40 shots Hopkins missed. Hopkins did make a couple of threes and went to the line a bit more, but honestly, how do you see that much value in basically providing just a ton more misses? The guy shot 44% on mostly close in shots -- do you think any scouting report was like "Play him tight - don't let him shoot." Any half decent coach was begging them to pass it in and get it out of Markel's or DSR's hands. That said, if this were Lubick v Hopkins, I'm not sure I would care so much. It's not. It's likely versus Isaac Copeland. I know which player I think is going to help us win more this year. Interestingly enough my remarks in this discussion never stooped to name-calling like “nerds” or even deriding those who live by these numbers/stats. Rather I commented that you guys can toss that stuff around all you want but it doesn’t tell the whole story, never has told the whole story and never will tell the whole story. For you to get angry about it and start sniping at me reveals more about you than it does me. I’ll get back to that in a moment. As for the numbers themselves no one is denying they have their place. No one is denying that people in all course of life use statistics. To even toss that suggestion out there into the conversation is nothing more than a strawman tactic. Instead I’ve consistently argued that numbers, depending on the topic, can’t always be accepted at face value. Example : you can have a center that shoots 59% and a center that shoot 48%. Let’s say the points they score on average are roughly the same. From that it would appear the first center that shoots the higher percentage is not only more efficient but the superior offensive player, right? Maybe not if the first center is being assisted on 70% of his baskets while the other center is only being assisted on 40% or less of his. By being better assisted that means the guy shooting a higher percentage has the benefit of teammates CREATING more opportunities for him for easy, probably more point blank buckets . The guy who is shooting 48% has to rely on creating more of his own opportunities because less than half of his scoring comes as a direct result of an assist. The obvious reason for this may simply be that the first guy has teammates who are superior at driving, drawing and dishing than the other guy’s teammates. The other guy has to display more moves and make more “contested” baskets on his own to get the same amount of points. By having to create more could lead to him turning the ball over more too. And despite all of that he still could be the better offensive player even though the FG% and turnover rate stats say otherwise. He could still be better because he is more capable at creating a scoring opportunity for himself in the halfcourt. No, this has nothing to do with Hopkins and Lubick or anyone on Georgetown. They were on the same team and therefore had the same players creating for them. And obviously when comparing Lubick and Hopkins we are not relying only on a single stat. However the fg% comparison I used above is an example of how stats can be deployed in a misleading way. The earliest I can recall the whole stat craze making its way into NBA discussions is during the latter half of Iverson’s career. Proponents of such stats-driven data loved to label Iverson as overrated because he took too many shots for them, didn’t make nearly enough, and turned over the ball too often for their tastes. There was some truth to this. Iverson was far from perfect and the total opposite of efficient. But those stats never told the whole story. Stats don’t take into consideration that Iverson was almost always the smallest person on the court and had to get his jumpshots over taller defenders or get his layups by scoring over trees in the paint. So why did he take such difficult shots? Because for most of his career (Philly days) he was the lone capable option on offense. The only one who could create for himself and others on a regular basis. The only one on his Philly teams that defenses had to even worry about. Yeah, a guy like that was never going to be highly efficient. Didn’t help that he always didn’t play smart basketball. Still would you judge a player like Iverson based on his some efficiency chart? How does that account for his will, drive, toughness, competitiveness? How does it measure his heart? Last I checked such characteristics aren’t measured on any chart but without them you didn’t get the whole story of Iverson. Teammates like Eric Snow and Kevin Ollie (just tossing out names) may have been efficient kings compared to AI, but did it make them better? Put aside the stats book for awhile and just do an eye test. And it was because of this discrepancy between what the efficiency stats said about Iverson and what Iverson actually meant to his teams, that I started to cast a somewhat suspicious eye on anyone who uses that stuff exclusively when judging a player. I do respect stats and rely on them to make my own basketball-related determinations when all things else are equal. But I don’t automatically assume they are the final word, not when it comes to sports and there are non-mathematical variables to consider. And I have to say of the numerous bball message boards (college and pro) I do visit, even the other Hoya sites, this is the only one where such a large selection of the members seem to completely embrace info such as adjusted offensive efficiency as if it is the final say on everything. Hell, this is the only site that regularly brings it up. I suppose many of you would take that as a badge of honor and view that as proof of the higher intelligence of Gtown fans and/or alum. And that’s fine. But I do feel rating anything basketball related is more than just numbers crunching. However if some people here are going to be essentially intolerant to any opinion that may not be perfectly aligned with what the stats say then we will continue to have some unnecessary chippy debates. How about respecting a difference of an opinion? Now with that off my chest let me get to the bone I have to pick with you. You got issues. Anger issues. It taints virtually every post of yours directed at others and me in particular when you really disagree with our views. “Enjoy your ignorance”; “when people are enthralled with hearing themselves speak”, etc. You don’t care for a debate as much as you like putting people down. I won’t argue that I’m disagreeable at times and opinionated, but what I try never to resort to is unwarranted remarks that are nasty and dismissive in tone. We had this “discussion” before in which I told you if you ever want to have a conversation with me to clear the air or lay into me about saying something that was out of bounds then by all means you can send me a PM. Just try keeping that nonsense off the board. But you keep doing what you do because apparently you like it. And you know the moderators will allow you to get away with it even though they warn virtually everyone else to adhere by the forum’s policies. When I disagree with your take I tend to write remarks limited to what I find wrong about your point of view. When you disagree with me often it leads to you remarking about what you find wrong with me. Big difference. I laugh when you have the nerve to even write the whole some people like to hear themselves speak nonsense? Do you ever go back and check out your own posts once you let them loose on the world? You keep talking and talking and talking in what ultimately end up as your own personal testaments of how brilliant your point of view is and how dumb are those with an opposite point of view. There’s a word for what you do: projection. You accuse others of all the sins that you are even more guilty of. I get we all have our bad days, that sometimes because of life we find ourselves in bad moods. But you take it too far. I have an immediate family member who was diagnosed with ALS a few months back. It has made me a bit bitter and mad at the world on the occasion. Yet I have enough common sense and decency to try not to take it out on anyone on a ::bleep:: message board. So I must wonder what the hell is on your plate to make you so eager to spread your venom at a moment’s notice. The solution is so easy for you. If you are unable to keep your dislike of me out of your remarks you can ignore me and my remarks entirely. Forever. It’s actually that simple. This too I have suggested in the past. Put me on ignore. But what fun would that be if you can’t get in the last zing, right? Might as well refer to you as Last Word SFHoya because if you ain’t getting the last comment in any disagreement you find yourself in (or create unnecessarily) then apparently all’s not right with your world. That may be a tacky thing for me to say but that’s basically the gist of what I have to deal with every time you take pleasure in making me your whipping boy. With that said I can move on from this and try to continue a respectful discussion/disagreement regarding this whole Lubick-Hopkins thing. Because to me at least it isn’t personal. And most importantly considering everything else that is going on right now with me, it definitely isn’t that serious. If you want to respond respectfully or if you want to ignore me altogether then that’s fine with me. It's up to you. But spare me your abrasive rebuttals. My arguments have never been about whether Lubick’s passivity hurt or helped DSR’s game. That’s irrelevant. I have argued that his refusal to look for his offense hurt the team. And that is a far bigger issue. His inability/unwillingness to develop offensive ability during four years is one reason why the team failed to reach certain heights but experienced a number of lows over his four years. This wasn’t the sole reason of course but it played a huge part. Here’s a guy who based upon his high school credentials was going to provide the Hoyas an inside scoring presence, someone who you could easily imagine scoring about 12 points per game his final two years. Was that too much to ask for a guy who was a starter in the Hoyas’ lineup for three years? If one wants to claim that wasn’t his mentality I have to ask wasn’t it his responsibility though? When dudes left early for the draft, got suspended, got injured, did Lubick at any time step up his game and try to make up the difference like an upperclassmen should? No, he remained a guy who looked more to deliver backdoor passes than needed buckets. If the defense is that he wasn’t a good enough to do this my question is where was the off-season work ethic by him to be at least an adequate postup guy? Should we give him a pass for not taking bad shots as a result of his never working on his game enough to be able to turn those into good/makeable shots? As for the whole taking away shots from DSR and Starks...if you think Lubick taking a couple extra shots per contest would have been detrimental well that sounds like crazy talk. First of all if he is so efficient as you claim then don’t you want him taking a couple of more attempts regardless? I mean who cares if he takes away from our two starting guards if they weren’t as efficient as him anyway, right? But of course what this says is that we all realize his efficiency numbers were not close to being an accurate portrayal of what he was as a player and therefore should be thrown out of the argument in the first place. Despite all of this when Lubick actually took that hook shot he was good at making it. And if being a threat to take such a shot meant that defenses had to concentrate on him just a bit more, wouldn’t that possibly have opened a things a little more for Starks and DSR? Maybe both could have scored as many points on less attempts simply because they had some help in the scoring department. And that's what Starks and DSR desperately needed last season. Help. The truth of the matter that once Greg was off the team for good, once Joshua was suspended and once Jabril was injured, the guards needed someone to step up. Lubick shrank from that opportunity, hell, he didn’t even try. He instead continued to float on the perimeter where he was even less of a threat to score than Hopkins was. This is not to suggest Hopkins was reliable either. He tends to have a terrific game in which he surprises you with what he can do followed by four games of ineptness. But I think people who have gone after Hopkins in a critical way have often given Lubick a free pass. But what really irritates me is this notion that Hopkins took too many shots. He was the team’s starting center and took 5 shots a game. Even with his below average field goal percentage what decent team could not deal with that? Five shots are such a big deal or are five shots only such a big deal in a tightly controlled offense in which possessions are limited (although some fans here claim that the offense was not like that last season)? If a team can’t afford a starter taking five shots a game then maybe something is wrong with the way the team plays. There were teams that went to the NCAA last season that must have had inefficient starters who jacked up at least five attempts a game. But if it happens on the Hoyas it is a recipe for disaster? Are we arguing that most of those shots should have gone to DSR and Starks instead? Wouldn’t that have made the burden greater for them? It seems that some of you tend to view Hopkins as selfish for taking shots because you may believe that any inefficient shooter who looks to score is selfish by nature. But is it any less selfish to run away from the burden of getting buckets when needed. Can’t Hopkins be credited at least for being aggressive even if he messed up badly in the process? I'd admire the guy who at least tries to step up where needed even if he fails at it over the guy who tends to play it safe and stays away from taking on the responsibility at all. Gratuitous military metaphor : if I’m in the foxhole it doesn’t matter if I’m the best shot, I’m not making it out of there alive if my fellow soldiers are too timid to even contemplate emptying their chambers. Even if their aim is awful I want my guys to at least be a threat to shoot the enemy. By the way I’d like to point out that I’m not championing that Hopkins starts ahead of Copeland. I was championing putting Peak in the starting lineup over Copeland if it came down between those two. Anyone who tries to use stats to play down AI are fools and can easily be refuted by game tapes.. Not just from his pro or college career, you could show tape of his HS play.. Hell show the Kenner footage that was posted a few weeks back.. The eye test is all you need to see that AI will moonwalk into the HOF when he's eligible.. Now when it comes to Hopkins, unfortunately he doesn't pass the eye test.. For me the stats just seal the deal.. I hope he plays very well this year but the reports from Kenner are the same as past years imo which means we may be looking at the same kid from previous regular seasons..
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Aug 13, 2014 18:59:45 GMT -5
If we average 93 points per game, I know we are winning the NC! I may have overstated some of the numbers....Porter only scored 9 a game as a frosh and played the 3rd most minutes on the team....to say Copeland will do the same while Peak does more is probably wishful thinking on my part. Campbell at 4 ppg may be on the high side as well....no guarantee he's going to get minutes. This being said, we do have the potential for a high powered offense. Do NOT let these people make you doubt your predictions! Stand by your beliefs! 93 points it is! If you believe in yourself, you (and by extension the Hoyas) will succeed! HOYA SAXA.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 13, 2014 19:39:09 GMT -5
I may have overstated some of the numbers....Porter only scored 9 a game as a frosh and played the 3rd most minutes on the team....to say Copeland will do the same while Peak does more is probably wishful thinking on my part. Campbell at 4 ppg may be on the high side as well....no guarantee he's going to get minutes. This being said, we do have the potential for a high powered offense. Do NOT let these people make you doubt your predictions! Stand by your beliefs! 93 points it is! If you believe in yourself, you (and by extension the Hoyas) will succeed! HOYA SAXA. People took issue with the averages and not an 11 man rotation? Is this Bizarro Hoyatalk?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,735
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 13, 2014 19:53:57 GMT -5
A 93 point output seems unrealistic for this offense, given that's it's topped 93 in Big East games less than ten times in ten years.
I'll go with ~73 points a game, as follows:
DSR 14.1 Smith: 10.2 Trawick 8.8 Hopkins 6.2
Copeland 5.5 Bowen 5.0 Cameron 5.0 Peak 4.8 White: 3.2
Campbell: 2.2 Hayes 1.0 Mourning: 0.5 Allen: 0.3 Williams: 0.1
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,264
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 13, 2014 19:57:37 GMT -5
Do NOT let these people make you doubt your predictions! Stand by your beliefs! 93 points it is! If you believe in yourself, you (and by extension the Hoyas) will succeed! HOYA SAXA. People took issue with the averages and not an 11 man rotation? Is this Bizarro Hoyatalk? So true! I suggested a 10-man rotation (playing more than 5 mpg) with Tre, Trey and Allen as the ones out of it, and thought the 7-man rotation police would come out. No word... And I like Tre, but there will be a pt crunch.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,264
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 13, 2014 20:01:18 GMT -5
Why less than last year? Just curious.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 13, 2014 20:01:53 GMT -5
People took issue with the averages and not an 11 man rotation? Is this Bizarro Hoyatalk? So true! I suggested a 10-man rotation (playing more than 5 mpg) with Tre, Trey and Allen as the ones out of it, and thought the 7-man rotation police would come out. No word... And I like Tre, but there will be a pt crunch. What a nice problem to have for a change, huh? This is gonna be fun... Reminds me of the wholesale lineup changes Big John would run out. The problem wasn't PT. It was lack of electrolytes and energy left to keep dudes running. I wonder if we'll see more offense/defense matchups this season as a result. Bowen, Hop, and Reggie specifically come to mind in that regard.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,264
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 13, 2014 20:03:33 GMT -5
So true! I suggested a 10-man rotation (playing more than 5 mpg) with Tre, Trey and Allen as the ones out of it, and thought the 7-man rotation police would come out. No word... And I like Tre, but there will be a pt crunch. What a nice problem to have for a change, huh? This is gonna be fun... Reminds me of the wholesale lineup changes Big John would run out. The problem wasn't PT. It was lack of electrolytes and energy left to keep dudes running. I wonder if we'll see more offense/defense matchups this season as a result. Bowen, Hop, and Reggie specifically come to mind in that regard. YES!! And Cameron guarded one-on-one or someone having to reach him at the perimeter?! Are we getting ahead of ourselves again? Is it November yet?!
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 13, 2014 20:03:44 GMT -5
Why less than last year? Just curious. The only thing I could figure is more help. He doesn't have to carry the team with Markel and no one else. It's possible that his totals could recede a little but I wouldn't bet on it. Kid is a scorer that, because he has some help, should also find more good looks.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 13, 2014 20:05:00 GMT -5
What a nice problem to have for a change, huh? This is gonna be fun... Reminds me of the wholesale lineup changes Big John would run out. The problem wasn't PT. It was lack of electrolytes and energy left to keep dudes running. I wonder if we'll see more offense/defense matchups this season as a result. Bowen, Hop, and Reggie specifically come to mind in that regard. YES!! Are we getting ahead of ourselves again? Is it November yet?! Ahead of ourselves? Who cares? Plus, it's more fun than the Lubick/Hop conversation.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,264
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 13, 2014 20:05:53 GMT -5
Why less than last year? Just curious. The only thing I could figure is more help. He doesn't have to carry the team with Markel and no one else. It's possible that his totals could recede a little but I wouldn't bet on it. Kid is a scorer that, because he has some help, should also find more good looks. Counter: Less attention/double teams on him leads to higher scoring.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,264
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 13, 2014 20:07:58 GMT -5
YES!! Are we getting ahead of ourselves again? Is it November yet?! Ahead of ourselves? Who cares? Plus, it's more fun than the Lubick/Hop conversation. Would someone summarize that MCI post? I had to skip it or lose plenty of billing time, time with the family, etc...
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 13, 2014 20:10:13 GMT -5
The only thing I could figure is more help. He doesn't have to carry the team with Markel and no one else. It's possible that his totals could recede a little but I wouldn't bet on it. Kid is a scorer that, because he has some help, should also find more good looks. Counter: Less attention/double teams on him leads to higher scoring. Yes! That's what I meant by that last part but crapped the bed on expressing it properly. I'm really excited to see the new Hoyas but I'm also excited to see DSR without the burden of providing 1/3 - 1/2 of the offense every game. We could, you know, pass it to an open guy and actually see him shoot for a change.
|
|