For one, this is an incredibly small sample size. And also includes two guys, in Newton and Ayo, who are closer in size to Vaaks than they are to Fland. Greivous Vasquez won the Cousy award at 6-6, and more recently Wagler, also at 6-6, was a very successful PG in college (though for some reason he ended up winning the SG award but I mean we all watched play PG right?). So is the contention here that there's some barrier between say 6-6 and 6-7 that makes it impossible to play PG?
I think this worked out well for us because if Wagler got listed as a PG, he wouldn’t have won the award over Acuff.
Not bad - badabing. Good old Julius. Forgot about that guy.For one, this is an incredibly small sample size. And also includes two guys, in Newton and Ayo, who are closer in size to Vaaks than they are to Fland. Greivous Vasquez won the Cousy award at 6-6, and more recently Wagler, also at 6-6, was a very successful PG in college (though for some reason he ended up winning the SG award but I mean we all watched play PG right?). So is the contention here that there's some barrier between say 6-6 and 6-7 that makes it impossible to play PG?
Most importantly, at one point I believe you challenged us to name one successful college PG at 6-7 or taller. I submit to you Julius Hodge, of NC State, finalist for the 2005 Bob Cousy award for best college point guard, standing at 6 foot, 7 inches tall. Debate over.
Ding ding ding - they have jets, tighter handles, can weave through traffic, keep the ball safe in pressure, run a break/acclerate. Think Nijel James at Marquette. There is a reason over the history of time, the vast majority of PG's have been the shortest guy on the floor - it's physics. There is less room between the hand and the ground, center of gravity. It's the same reason running backs are usually shorter.
Last year, we had one of the most efficient offenses in modern history without a point guard as you describe it. So I guess it’s not needed?
It’s been discovered that those skills and physical attributes classically associated with “point guards” do not correlate with winning basketball games, particularly with the rules and skill across all positions in the modern game. Think Nigel James at Marquette. Most teams have guys like that because there are a hell of a lot more 6’1” guys on the planet than there are 6’6”+ guys. Running backs only last 2.5 years in the NFL partly because they are comparatively easy to replace via the draft.
He won't be guarding the opponent's PG too often. Why do you insist that our primary PG on offense has to guard the opponent's PG? You realize he can be our main PG on offense, yet a quicker guy like Coleman or Williams can get guard the opponent's PG?
I definitely see top 5 offense, where in that top 5 could be higher than lower, but elite being the key.
Yes, but I was talking about floors. As a floor, I don’t see us worse than a top 5 offense and a top 40 defense (unless things completely fall off the rails).
I'm assuming this means we're likely to finish above USC?
Great work - the one caveat I’d say is the way they pick tournament teams and seeds is way different now then the early part of your analysis. Teams also schedule differently and then game those metrics way more then in the past (i.e. a coach in 2010 like Bruce Weber probably didn’t know what analytics was lol).
What do you think coaches do to "game" the metrics?
Our record in close games was presumably the reason for us being a 3-seed despite being top-8 in efficiency metrics. Those metrics don't care much if you win by 1 or lose by 1, but the selection/seeding committee probably does.
There are a lot of math junkies here trying to calculate basketball championships as though it's an algorithm. While there is certainly some math involved, when you're at the top of the sport, and we are, it the becomes more about intangibles, and match ups, finding a way to be bullet-proof on both sides of the floor.
One could argue many of those things are part of a good algorithm
False equivalence. These players aren’t good because of their height, they’re good in spite of it. If the players listed had the same skills and were a few inches taller, they’d be even better. Finding tall players with guard skills is a good thing, acrually.
That’s great to see the guys coming back- you know the love for the program is strong and we’re building the right culture when you see NBA guys coming back to work out in the summer
