Harrison is climbing the ladder

[SJU1512]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

 

[simplyred]

If this team didn't have Harrison, whatever his percentages, we would struggle to win just about every game on our schedule. He isn't always on, but h e is definitely our go to guy and leader on offense. I wish we had another Moe but we don't. Until then, Harrison is our #1 option.

 

[beast of the east]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

Even DiMaggio is/was not above criticism. I know/knew many old timers who would say DiMaggio would not go hard after a ball he couldn't catch gracefully; that image was everything to him. I have an uncle who HATED Mantle but will swear the ball he got hurt on in right center was DiMaggio's but Joe pulled up on it. My point is not to criticize JD because I have no idea but to point out that criticism comes along with the territory of being an athlete out in front of the public.

If you are a baseball fan, the DiMaggio book is a great read. I never heard any claim that DiMaggio didn't play hard. Even in the 51 World Series, when Mantle had the career changing injury, DiMaggio was swung around towards left center when the ball was hit towards right center. Stengel had instructed Mantle to cheat towards center and catch anything he could to help out DiMaggio. So Mantle with his incredible speed took off at full after the ball in the gap, only to find that when he looked up that DiMaggio was camped under the ball. Mantle jammed on the brakes, caught his foot in a drain cover, and the rest was history. So, the criticism of DiMaggio could have been fan based because he made everything look so easy.

 

[usguard]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

You can say that about every team So if Doug Mc Dermott was not playing how many wins would they have ,not many

 

[redfazed]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

You can say that about every team So if Doug Mc Dermott was not playing how many wins would they have ,not many

They'd have a lot of wins, I think. They have Wragge--who almost singlehandedly destroyed Villnova.

 

[beast of the east]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

You can say that about every team So if Doug Mc Dermott was not playing how many wins would they have ,not many

If we were 5-4 or 4-5 in conference I'd agree with you. We are 3-6 and our leading scorer is one of the 3 worst shooters among the top 50 scorers in D1, and must his numbers are partially responsible for that.

 

[fuchsia]

And of course none of Harrison's percentages are affected by his coach's decision to play him with a backup shooting guard at the point for much of this season. Just as PGIV was misused, it affected his teammates, including Harrison.

 

[logen]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

You can say that about every team So if Doug Mc Dermott was not playing how many wins would they have ,not many

They'd have a lot of wins, I think. They have Wragge--who almost singlehandedly destroyed Villnova.

Come on, Wragge gets his open jumpers because of McDermott. They are a decent team w/o McDermott at best.

 

[simplyred]

I was on the Creighton boards before, and shortly after, our game with them. Their fans are rather obnoxious. They are becoming the new Syracuse for me. They are a very good team with a great player but they seem to feel that they will own this league going forward.

 

[redfazed]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

You can say that about every team So if Doug Mc Dermott was not playing how many wins would they have ,not many

They'd have a lot of wins, I think. They have Wragge--who almost singlehandedly destroyed Villnova.

Come on, Wragge gets his open jumpers because of McDermott. They are a decent team w/o McDermott at best.

Wragge's shooting %'s are as good as McDermott's and he logs almost 30 mins a game. And that's the point--they have 2 legitimate shooters. Double team one of them, leave the other open and you lose.

 

[logen]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

You can say that about every team So if Doug Mc Dermott was not playing how many wins would they have ,not many

They'd have a lot of wins, I think. They have Wragge--who almost singlehandedly destroyed Villnova.

Come on, Wragge gets his open jumpers because of McDermott. They are a decent team w/o McDermott at best.

Wragge's shooting %'s are as good as McDermott's and he logs almost 30 mins a game. And that's the point--they have 2 legitimate shooters. Double team one of them, leave the other open and you lose.

There is not a reason in the world you need to double team Wragge - while he is a VERY good shooter he cannot create a shot. He killed Nova because they double teamed McDermott; he did nothing against us because we didn't. Frankly, to compare the two as players because their shooting %'s are similar just doesn't make sense. McDermott is an AA, Wragge a good role player, albeit a very valuable role.

 

[redfazed]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

You can say that about every team So if Doug Mc Dermott was not playing how many wins would they have ,not many

They'd have a lot of wins, I think. They have Wragge--who almost singlehandedly destroyed Villnova.

Come on, Wragge gets his open jumpers because of McDermott. They are a decent team w/o McDermott at best.

Wragge's shooting %'s are as good as McDermott's and he logs almost 30 mins a game. And that's the point--they have 2 legitimate shooters. Double team one of them, leave the other open and you lose.

There is not a reason in the world you need to double team Wragge - while he is a VERY good shooter he cannot create a shot. He killed Nova because they double teamed McDermott; he did nothing against us because we didn't. Frankly, to compare the two as players because their shooting %'s are similar just doesn't make sense. McDermott is an AA, Wragge a good role player, albeit a very valuable role.

I'm not saying they are equal--McDermott is hands down the superior player. But Wragge is a consistent, top-caliber shooter and while you don't have to double team him, you cannot double-team McDermott and leave Wragge open. Wragge will make you pay.

 

[tom in salem]

I was on the Creighton boards before, and shortly after, our game with them. Their fans are rather obnoxious. They are becoming the new Syracuse for me. They are a very good team with a great player but they seem to feel that they will own this league going forward.

I was wondering who that poster was.
Well done.

 

[redfazed]

I was on the Creighton boards before, and shortly after, our game with them. Their fans are rather obnoxious. They are becoming the new Syracuse for me. They are a very good team with a great player but they seem to feel that they will own this league going forward.

I was wondering who that poster was.
Well done.

Let's see how smug they are next year without McDermott and Wragge.

 

[simplyred]

I was on the Creighton boards before, and shortly after, our game with them. Their fans are rather obnoxious. They are becoming the new Syracuse for me. They are a very good team with a great player but they seem to feel that they will own this league going forward.

I was wondering who that poster was.
Well done.

I didn't post. I just went on to see what they were saying. Our guy on there held his own.

 

[tom in salem]

I was on the Creighton boards before, and shortly after, our game with them. Their fans are rather obnoxious. They are becoming the new Syracuse for me. They are a very good team with a great player but they seem to feel that they will own this league going forward.

I was wondering who that poster was.
Well done.

I didn't post. I just went on to see what they were saying. Our guy on there held his own.

Ok, who was it?

 

[Jack Williams]

I was on the Creighton boards before, and shortly after, our game with them. Their fans are rather obnoxious. They are becoming the new Syracuse for me. They are a very good team with a great player but they seem to feel that they will own this league going forward.

I was wondering who that poster was.
Well done.

I didn't post. I just went on to see what they were saying. Our guy on there held his own.

Ok, who was it?

That was me on bluejayunderground.com as "JohnnieFan"

 

[ipd200]

BUT - his overall shooting percentage is way too low for someone scoring so many points, costing his team in very close games. Some of it is focus, and some of it is shot selection. But you can't tell me we wouldn't be winning more if his shooting % was closer to 50%. Basketball is just math. All things being equal - rebounds, fouls, turnovers, blocks - the team that shoots better wins. When your best scorer has one of the lowest shooting % among the top scorers in D1, unless the rest of the team is picking up the slack, your record isn't going to be very good.

I think that stroke is a little too broad. No doubt, we'd be a better/more efficient team if he shot a better %. You could say that about any player, especially the one's who shoot the most.

But we'd also be a lesser team if Harrison wasn't giving us the actual scoring production he's giving us. I'd rather have a guy capable of getting you 18 a game at 40% than a capable of shooting 52% but can't get his shot consistently.

While higher %s from volume scorers is preferred, it's not a requirement. Harrison is getting 18.1 on 39.6/36.4/85.2. Last year Russ Smith got 18.7 on 41.4/32.8/80.4 and they won a National Championship. This year Bryce Cotton is getting 20.8 on 41.0/32.8/83.5 and is getting national attention for what he and his team are doing.

The amount of true #1 type players who can score at a high level while also doing so with efficient percentages is limited. There are only so many of them out there. Every other player has varying degrees of warts, and while this is one of Harrison's most prominent, it's relatively minor, especially in the context of some of the deficiencies this team has. They aren't ideal percentages, but they aren't holding us back in any significant way either.

Russ Smith is an anomaly I believe, and I'm not sure you needed the ball in his hands with the game on the line. You make a good argument though, but the main difference between Smith's team and Harrison's that if Smith is the best player that HIS TEAM WINS, and if Harrison is ours, we could see 4 years from him without a sniff of the NCAAs. That speaks volumes.

A really great baseball book to read is Joe DiMaggio - a Hero's Life. I had always been dismissive of DiMaggio to the extend that you can of an all time great player because his Yankee teams were so stacked. however, what the book makes clear is that DiMaggio took it as his PERSONAL responsibility to deliver a World championships, and some of his heroics in the World Series were the kind that won't show up in a boxscore, or in the Series summary, but nearly always included coming up big when it mattered. there is a great phot in the book for example of how the graceful and smooth DiMaggio was headed towards the plate when the ball was going to arrive a moment sooner. He DOVE OVER the catcher's shoulder who was bracing for a collision, and in an acrobatic move never seen in that era (or rarely in any), landed and swiped the plate with an outstretched arm.

The point is, great players find a way for delivering wins for their team, not in the body of a line score, but also coming up big when it matters. You can argue that being one of the three worst shooter in the top 50 NCAA scorers is good enough. I would counter that looking at our record, it clearly is not.

TO BE CLEAR though, I'd want Harrison on my team getting minutes on any SJU squad I've ever seen.

No argument there. As I said in response to Alum, I didn't mean to compare Harrison to Smith to Cotton overall, I just used them to show that great shooting percentages, while preferred, can be overstated. A volume scorer at 33% is hurting his team. A volume scorer at 40% vs. 45%, while different, is not really that statistically significant when observed in a vacuum. As we are both pointing out I think, you have to look at it in context. Clearly, as you mention, there is a difference in Harrison v. Smith, and that difference is finer than their overall numbers/percentages (which are similar if comparing Smith last year to Harrison this year).

I guess what I'm saying is that horrific %s are a bad thing, great %s are a good thing, and middling %s (like Harrison's this year, and Smith last) are not an automatic demerit, they have to be looked at in the context of what that player brings to the team.

You can say that about every team So if Doug Mc Dermott was not playing how many wins would they have ,not many

They'd have a lot of wins, I think. They have Wragge--who almost singlehandedly destroyed Villnova.

Come on, Wragge gets his open jumpers because of McDermott. They are a decent team w/o McDermott at best.

Wragge's shooting %'s are as good as McDermott's and he logs almost 30 mins a game. And that's the point--they have 2 legitimate shooters. Double team one of them, leave the other open and you lose.

There is not a reason in the world you need to double team Wragge - while he is a VERY good shooter he cannot create a shot. He killed Nova because they double teamed McDermott; he did nothing against us because we didn't. Frankly, to compare the two as players because their shooting %'s are similar just doesn't make sense. McDermott is an AA, Wragge a good role player, albeit a very valuable role.

I'm not saying they are equal--McDermott is hands down the superior player. But Wragge is a consistent, top-caliber shooter and while you don't have to double team him, you cannot double-team McDermott and leave Wragge open. Wragge will make you pay.

You leave Hooper open he will make you pay

 

[BrookJersey Redmen]

Go D’Angelo, redemption stories are good stories. Sure did turn things around. Kudos for that.

 

[beast of the east]

I was on the Creighton boards before, and shortly after, our game with them. Their fans are rather obnoxious. They are becoming the new Syracuse for me. They are a very good team with a great player but they seem to feel that they will own this league going forward.

Yea, they'll own the league, if they put their coach out to stud and he produces another AKC show winner. Other than that they will just be dogs.