Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

[BalloonsTheElephant]

Interesting Ben Humrichous tidbit that I'm unsure will change your perception or not, but here goes:

Ben Humrichous led the entire B1G in lowest turnover % last year (qualifying players who started > 16 games)

Guy played almost 1,000 minutes and had 17 turnovers. That's why he played (ie, not because Brad is stubborn old codger)

I'm not a Ben hater, but this is a misleading stat. The vast majority of Ben's touches were catch and shoot, or moving the ball to the next guy with a little bit of booty ball mixed in.

He had a 14.2% usage rate, which is 2nd lowest on the team, beating only Keaton Kutcher.

I have no problem with Ben, other than if he wasn't hitting threes, he was a liability in the first half of the season. I feel like his game adapted and he became a more complete player. However, this stat is useless in this context.

 

[NarrowJ]

I'm not a Ben hater, but this is a misleading stat. The vast majority of Ben's touches were catch and shoot, or moving the ball to the next guy with a little bit of booty ball mixed in.

He had a 14.2% usage rate, which is 2nd lowest on the team, beating only Keaton Kutcher.

I have no problem with Ben, other than if he wasn't hitting threes, he was a liability in the first half of the season. I feel like his game adapted and he became a more complete player. However, this stat is useless in this context.

Ben wasn't a primary or even secondary ballhandler, but he was involved in initiating the offense via ball screens up top more often than not. He was what you call a 'connector' on offense.

He led an entire 18 team conference in this statistic, of which there are of course players on each one of those teams who have similar archetypes and roles in their respective offenses.

In no way whatsoever is that statistic useless.

 

[Mobi]

Ben is not bad of taking care the ball even when he initiated the offense himself. However, I don't know how much Brad makes his decision based on the turnover %. If he did, KJ should have sit at the end of the bench. Not saying it's not a factor but I doubt it's a major one.

 

[ptgrd23]

Ben really stepped up in February and March. Diving for loose balls, crashing the boards, occasionally guarding the 5, not shooting the 3 every time he touched the ball. Luke excelled in that role, only taking 3's when he was open. Not taking logo 3's. JMO Ben will be better this year with less mpg. People are really underestimating how many minutes Ty will play. We will need him on floor for rebounding and defense. Hopefully he has developed some offense as well.

If we had kept Luke and started him I think we would have been a better team. Luke was a "culture" guy, team first. However I am glad that Luke got a chance to play for his "dream" school being an Indiana native.

 

[BalloonsTheElephant]

Ben wasn't a primary or even secondary ballhandler, but he was involved in initiating the offense via ball screens up top more often than not. He was what you call a 'connector' on offense.

He led an entire 18 team conference in this statistic, of which there are of course players on each one of those teams who have similar archetypes and roles in their respective offenses.

In no way whatsoever is that statistic useless.

I'd love to see more data on how many dribbles and how many seconds he took per touch. Again, I don't mind Ben, but his job was to shoot or move the ball. It's like praising a quarterback for handing the ball off and throwing check downs all game and hardly throwing an interception.

I feel like you used this same data point for Domask or Ty or both. I don't find it useful in judging Ben's season with us. Hard data can still be subjective and that's ok. We just disagree on weighing the data.

 

[NarrowJ]

I'd love to see more data on how many dribbles and how many seconds he took per touch. Again, I don't mind Ben, but his job was to shoot or move the ball. It's like praising a quarterback for handing the ball off and throwing check downs all game and hardly throwing an interception.

I feel like you used this same data point for Domask or Ty or both. I don't find it useful in judging Ben's season with us. Hard data can still be subjective and that's ok. We just disagree on weighing the data.

I’m not going to stop you from talking yourself out of it. But the same things you’re saying about Ben can be said about 50-75 other B1G players, and he had a better turnover rate than all of them.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

I'd love to see more data on how many dribbles and how many seconds he took per touch. Again, I don't mind Ben, but his job was to shoot or move the ball. It's like praising a quarterback for handing the ball off and throwing check downs all game and hardly throwing an interception.

I feel like you used this same data point for Domask or Ty or both. I don't find it useful in judging Ben's season with us. Hard data can still be subjective and that's ok. We just disagree on weighing the data.

There are lots of players who are also catch-and-shoot types, who also had low usage, and who had higher turnover rates. It's not like BH was the only player on the planet with this kind of role.

By the way, usage is not a statistic for how often you touch the ball. Usage is a statistic for how often when you are on the floor you make one of the following plays: field goal attempt, assist, shoot free throws, or turn the ball over. You could theoretically touch the ball a ton without it showing up on usage, particularly if you're not turning the ball over.

I’m not going to stop you from talking yourself out of it. But the same things you’re saying about Ben can be said about 50-75 other B1G players, and he had a better turnover rate than all of them.

Almost. Per Sports Reference he actually had the 3rd best turnover rate in the conference, not the best.

The best? Luke Goode.

 

[NarrowJ]

Almost. Per Sports Reference he actually had the 3rd best turnover rate in the conference, not the best.

The best? Luke Goode.

The source I used qualified players by # of games started which Luke Goode (and whoever your source, basketball-reference, lists as 2nd) did not meet that criteria.

But same thing- Luke Goode is also a catch & shoot, connector guy on offense. Even if you bring in more players/data by lowering the qualification needed to be included, 3rd in an 18 team conference is very very good. One could say elite lol.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

The source I used qualified players by # of games started which Luke Goode (and whoever your source, basketball-reference, lists as 2nd) did not meet that criteria.

I used sports reference. I don't think basketball reference does NCAA stats.

Anyways, # games started is a terrible way filter qualifying players. Goode played 26.7 mpg over 32 games. He played just 52 fewer minutes than BH, 5 fewer minutes than Tomi, and played more minutes than Tre White or Morez. He should absolutely qualify for statistical leaderboards.

But same thing- Luke Goode is also a catch & shoot, connector guy on offense. Even if you bring in more players/data by lowering the qualification needed to be included, 3rd in an 18 team conference is very very good. One could say elite lol.

Don't disagree, just in favor of accuracy. Also BH was good at not turning the ball over, but I do think there's a debate to be had as to how important that really is. You can make an argument that, for a player who is there almost strictly to shoot the ball efficiently, the low turnover rate does not make up for being relatively inefficient as a shooter (and I think the thing about BH is that he was a better 3pt shooter than he gets credit for, but that also obscures that he was a bad 2pt shooter - the worst on the team to get regular minutes - and a not great FT shooter).

 

[NarrowJ]

I used sports reference. I don't think basketball reference does NCAA stats.

View attachment 42545

Anyways, # games started is a terrible way filter qualifying players. Goode played 26.7 mpg over 32 games. He played just 52 fewer minutes than BH, 5 fewer minutes than Tomi, and played more minutes than Tre White or Morez. He should absolutely qualify for statistical leaderboards.


Don't disagree, just in favor of accuracy. Also BH was good at not turning the ball over, but I do think there's a debate to be had as to how important that really is. You can make an argument that, for a player who is there almost strictly to shoot the ball efficiently, the low turnover rate does not make up for being relatively inefficient as a shooter (and I think the thing about BH is that he was a better 3pt shooter than he gets credit for, but that also obscures that he was a bad 2pt shooter - the worst on the team to get regular minutes - and a not great FT shooter).

Ok, the site/source I used seemed to think it was a good way of qualifying players - I am not going to nitpick that to death

Sounds like we agree on main point/premise here

Being 3rd after adding a whole bunch more qualifying players may actually be more impressive than being 1st on a much shorter list

 

[Weatherspoon1]

Honestly discussing TO ratio re: Goode/BH is irrelevant - the only time they have the ball in their hands is to shoot. I’ve never been crazy about either of them.

 

[NarrowJ]

Honestly discussing TO ratio re: Goode/BH is irrelevant - the only time they have the ball in their hands is to shoot. I’ve never been crazy about either of them.

This is just false

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Ok, the site/source I used seemed to think it was a good way of qualifying players - I am not going to nitpick that to death

Sounds like we agree on main point/premise here

Being 3rd after adding a whole bunch more qualifying players may actually be more impressive than being 1st on a much shorter list

I agree that BH is not good at turning the ball over which seems to be a very cherry-picked way of justifying his play time. So I do not think it's accurate to say I agree with the premise, which appears to be that "it was justifiable that BH played starter's minutes because he did not turn the ball over."

My take on BH is this: his play wasn't has bad as most people on here make out, but it also wasn't as good as you seem to want to argue. His play was consistent with his decreased role and playing time down the stretch. He's a candidate for big improvement this year. But if he doesn't improve, he should play fewer minutes.

BH was brought in primarily to score efficiently. He didn't do that. His 3pt % was OK. Not great. Not good. Not bad. Not terrible. It was acceptable. I don't think anyone believes it is what the coaching staff hoped for when they brought him in. His 2pt% was BAD. On the team the only two players with worse 2pt% were Cary Booth and AJ Redd. His FT% was also below average for what you'd expect from a shooter (and in fact 6 percentage points below the team average).

I think BH played the amount of time he played because if he ever had turned that corner it would have been a game-changer. BH starting to drill 40% of his 3pt attempts could have been the one thing that would have turned that team into a legit Final Four contender. I think BU kept playing BH in the hopes he'd take that leap at some point. It was a risk that I know a lot of people on here wish BU hadn't taken. I actually think it was worth it, even though it never panned out.

 

[NarrowJ]

I agree that BH is not good at turning the ball over which seems to be a very cherry-picked way of justifying his play time. So I do not think it's accurate to say I agree with the premise, which appears to be that "it was justifiable that BH played starter's minutes because he did not turn the ball over."

My take on BH is this: his play wasn't has bad as most people on here make out, but it also wasn't as good as you seem to want to argue. His play was consistent with his decreased role and playing time down the stretch. He's a candidate for big improvement this year. But if he doesn't improve, he should play fewer minutes.

BH was brought in primarily to score efficiently. He didn't do that. His 3pt % was OK. Not great. Not good. Not bad. Not terrible. It was acceptable. I don't think anyone believes it is what the coaching staff hoped for when they brought him in. His 2pt% was BAD. On the team the only two players with worse 2pt% were Cary Booth and AJ Redd. His FT% was also below average for what you'd expect from a shooter (and in fact 6 percentage points below the team average).

I think BH played the amount of time he played because if he ever had turned that corner it would have been a game-changer. BH starting to drill 40% of his 3pt attempts could have been the one thing that would have turned that team into a legit Final Four contender. I think BU kept playing BH in the hopes he'd take that leap at some point. It was a risk that I know a lot of people on there wish BU hadn't taken. I actually think it was worth it, even though it never panned out.

Then you're overreacting to my argument

I have presented only facts (ie, turnover rate) and one singular opinion (that is was why Brad had so much trust in him)

Does it not seem reasonable that it could be why he played so much? If not, then why? Is Brad really just a stubborn, know-nothing curmudgeon?

If we don't agree then I think you misunderstood my argument

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Then you're overreacting to my argument

I have mostly only facts (ie, turnover rate) and one singular opinion (that is was why Brad had so much trust in him)

Does it not seem reasonable that it could be why he played so much? If not, then why? Is Brad really just a stubborn, know-nothing curmudgeon?

If we don't agree then I think you misunderstood my argument

I said why I think in my post, no need for a strawman (and a particularly weird one at that as I have been pretty pro-BU in the past and even defended his decision to play BH in my post, lol).

If turnover rate was as big a deal as you seem to want it to be, then we should have gone all out for Pryce Sandfort who had a lower turnover rate, and better shooting. Another reason I don't think it's that big a deal is that BU gave the most minutes to the two guys with the highest turnover rates on our team, and gave very few minutes to the guy with the 2nd lowest turnover rate on our team (Jake Davis). If you look at our roster, there was zero correlation between turnover rate and playing time. Absolutely none. It just reeks of post hoc rationalization.

 

[NarrowJ]

I said why I think in my post, no need for a strawman (and a particularly weird one at that as I have been pretty pro-BU in the past and even defended his decision to play BH in my post, lol).

If turnover rate was as big a deal as you seem to want it to be, then we should have gone all out for Pryce Sandfort who had a lower turnover rate, and better shooting. Another reason I don't think it's that big a deal is that BU gave the most minutes to the two guys with the highest turnover rates on our team, and gave very few minutes to the guy with the 2nd lowest turnover rate on our team (Jake Davis). If you look at our roster, there was zero correlation between turnover rate and playing time. Absolutely none. It just reeks of post hoc rationalization.

Didn’t realize a question is a strawman. I’m just trying to figure out what your argument even is.

We did recruit Sanfort. He visited here. Did you miss that? And yes one thing he does well is take care of the ball (ie, not turn it over).

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Didn’t realize a question is a strawman. I’m just trying to figure out what your argument even is.

Yes, framing my disagreement with your point as "Is Brad really just a stubborn, know-nothing curmudgeon?" is a strawman. C'mon.

We did recruit Sanfort. He visited here. Did you miss that? And yes one thing he does well is take care of the ball (ie, not turn it over).

How much did we offer him? How much did we offer Stoj (whose turnover rate is 2x Sandfort's)? Sandfort ended up going to Nebraska. We could definitely have outbid them if low turnover rate is a major factor in player evaluation.

And yes, there are other things Stoj does better. Which is the point. Turnover rate is certainly a statistic, but in no way is it a statistic that is the primary determinant of anyone's playing time (except in instances where the turnover rate is so high that a given player is too much of a liability). I am confident there was never a discussion where the coaching staff was talking about playing time and BU said, "well, I get he's not shooting it as well as we'd like, but dang it, he's got such a great turnover rate, I've got to keep playing him!"

 

[NarrowJ]

Yes, framing my disagreement with your point as "Is Brad really just a stubborn, know-nothing curmudgeon?" is a strawman. C'mon.


How much did we offer him? How much did we offer Stoj (whose turnover rate is 2x Sandfort's)? Sandfort ended up going to Nebraska. We could definitely have outbid them if low turnover rate is a major factor in player evaluation.

And yes, there are other things Stoj does better. Which is the point. Turnover rate is certainly a statistic, but in no way is it a statistic that is the primary determinant of anyone's playing time (except in instances where the turnover rate is so high that a given player is too much of a liability). I am confident there was never a discussion where the coaching staff was talking about playing time and BU said, "well, I get he's not shooting it as well as we'd like, but dang it, he's got such a great turnover rate, I've got to keep playing him!"

We obviously recruited Sanfort as a role player, which is what Ben is. On what planet does Andrej enter the conversation? Talk about strawman, geez lol.

Can’t even admit Ben is good at even one thing without a full on attack on here.

Coaches value players who take care of the ball, that’s not really arguable imo.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

We obviously recruited Sanfort as a role player, which is what Ben is. On what planet does Andrej enter the conversation? Talk about strawman, geez lol.

Can’t even admit Ben is good at even one thing without a full on attack on here.

Coaches value players who take care of the ball, that’s not really arguable imo.

C'mon. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying again.

You seem to want to say that BH's minutes were justified by his turnover rate, because he has a phenomenal turnover rate. But you don't want to commit to the idea that BU has made decisions about anyone else's playing time based on turnover rate, because there's absolutely no evidence that correlates turnover rate to playing time.

If Jake Davis had played enough minutes to qualify, he'd be #10 in the conference in turnover rate. That's also elite. But Jake Davis played 1/3 of the minutes that BH played.

The season prior, Amani Hansberry had the lowest turnover rate. It was even lower than BH's. Amani Hansberry barely played at all.

The season before that it was Luke Goode with the lowest turnover rate. He played in just 10 games.

The season before that it was Alphonso Plummer who played a lot (another catch and shoot guy). Followed very closely by BBV who played 7.8 minutes a game.

Turnover rate has never correlated with playing time for Brad Underwood teams. It just hasn't. Again, this is just pure post hoc rationalization.

 

[NarrowJ]

C'mon. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying again.

You seem to want to say that BH's minutes were justified by his turnover rate, because he has a phenomenal turnover rate. But you don't want to commit to the idea that BU has made decisions about anyone else's playing time based on turnover rate, because there's absolutely no evidence that correlates turnover rate to playing time.

If Jake Davis had played enough minutes to qualify, he'd be #10 in the conference in turnover rate. That's also elite. But Jake Davis played 1/3 of the minutes that BH played.

The season prior, Amani Hansberry had the lowest turnover rate. It was even lower than BH's. Amani Hansberry barely played at all.

The season before that it was Luke Goode with the lowest turnover rate. He played in just 10 games.

The season before that it was Alphonso Plummer who played a lot (another catch and shoot guy). Followed very closely by BBV who played 7.8 minutes a game.

Turnover rate has never correlated with playing time for Brad Underwood teams. It just hasn't. Again, this is just pure post hoc rationalization.

Then ask Brad if he likes players who don't turn the ball over

Nearly 1000 minutes, only 17 turnovers

Why isn't anyone allowed to say Ben is good at something, anything, just one thing? And yes, I think that is why he played so much: Brad trusts him

And I will die on that hill

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Then ask Brad if he likes players who don't turn the ball over

Of course. But in the history of his teams there have been plenty of players who protected the ball as well as or better than BH and did not play, and plenty of players who turned the ball over a ton and did play, so this is still meaningless.

 

[GoodePodzMelendez]

Ben wasn't a primary or even secondary ballhandler, but he was involved in initiating the offense via ball screens up top more often than not. He was what you call a 'connector' on offense.

He led an entire 18 team conference in this statistic, of which there are of course players on each one of those teams who have similar archetypes and roles in their respective offenses.

In no way whatsoever is that statistic useless.

He will be role player in doing just that, setting screens for quick pop outs. He has a full season under his belt and we have no idea what improvements he has made so far in the offseason. What if he becomes a poor mans Hawk? Just saying as we just do not know.

 

[GoodePodzMelendez]

Then ask Brad if he likes players who don't turn the ball over

Nearly 1000 minutes, only 17 turnovers

Why isn't anyone allowed to say Ben is good at something, anything, just one thing? And yes, I think that is why he played so much: Brad trusts him

And I will die on that hill

He does believe in BH. 6th year guy with a year here under his belt. I was not a fan of him last year but may be he will surprise us and Indy this year.

 

[NarrowJ]

Of course. But in the history of his teams there have been plenty of players who protected the ball as well as or better than BH and did not play, and plenty of players who turned the ball over a ton and did play, so this is still meaningless.

Its not meaningless, if Ben turned the ball over at a high rate he wouldn't have played as much, I don't know how anyone could argue against that

If you're just saying it isn't a 1:1 correlation between turnovers and playing time, then I guess you're correct in arguing a point that nobody made

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Wow! Ben Humrichous is clearly Illinois’ most divisive player… even among those who defend him!