Sorry St. John's

Jack, you really might be the most pessimistic SJ "fan" I've ever seen. I'm crazy for thinking they will storm the court if they beat us? Um...Fordham fans stormed the court a few years back when we weren't even that good. Fordham is in a better conference (A10) than the WCC. You clearly don't understand the perspective from a mid major fan. I went to an undergrad institution in the MAAC aka mid major, and people would get VERY excited if we could even bring a team like Virginia into our little gym. I know the perspective because I lived it. If all you know are cupcake schools in your conference that no one has ever heard of, you get extremely pumped when a name brand school from the Big Bad East comes in. Beating us would be a notch in their belt and something to brag about. Fans would say "we beat a Big East school". It's not so much about the individual success the team has had, it's about conference affiliation since it's the highest level. I think as SJ fans we forget our stature at times because we are used to it. But whenever I think we are doing bad I just remember that we could be in the MAAC playing 1 great out of conference team each year only to lose by 60 instead of being a major team playing the best of the best.

And you are sorely mistaken if you think guys who played in the 50's were just as strong, fast, agile, powerful, etc. as guys today. The only thing that would remain the same from then is pure shooters since if left open it doesn't matter what your condition is...you just make shots. Maybe rebounding to a certain extent also, but the players in the 50's were not nearly as athletic as college teams today. A guy like God'sgift would be among the best players on a 1950's squad no matter who they were. Look how the NFL, NBA, and NCAABB have changed over the years. It used to be a sport where a small, slow guy could make it. Not anymore. Look at MLB players too...you think Babe Ruth would still do just as well in 2012 against a 104 MPH fastball from Ardolis Chapman or Strasburg? What I'm saying is, talent is mostly innate, but the condition, ability, and endurance of athletes today is WAY superior to their 1950's counterparts. Can't even see how you can argue the opposite.
 
Phil Greene has to set the tone. When he's on, we're dangerous.

But I'm not liking the small gym road game at all. Black uniforms too. ;)

We have to turn this into a track meet and early.
 
Phil Greene has to set the tone. When he's on, we're dangerous.

But I'm not liking the small gym road game at all. Black uniforms too. ;)

We have to turn this into a track meet and early.
Click to expand...

We beat a solid Frank Martin South Carolina team with the black unis. Let's not start this black uniform thing again. It's not the color of the uniforms, it's the character of the guys in them.
 
Phil Greene has to set the tone. When he's on, we're dangerous.

But I'm not liking the small gym road game at all. Black uniforms too. ;)

We have to turn this into a track meet and early.
Click to expand...

We beat a solid Frank Martin South Carolina team with the black unis. Let's not start this black uniform thing again. It's not the color of the uniforms, it's the character of the guys in them.
Click to expand...

I think our biggest keys are: 1) getting off to a hot start 2) winning the rebound battle or at least matching them 3) 3 pt shooting...if we are hot or not.

If we can do all 3 of those things I say we are fine. If we don't, we have a good chance of losing.
 
Phil Greene has to set the tone. When he's on, we're dangerous.

But I'm not liking the small gym road game at all. Black uniforms too. ;)

We have to turn this into a track meet and early.
Click to expand...

We beat a solid Frank Martin South Carolina team with the black unis. Let's not start this black uniform thing again. It's not the color of the uniforms, it's the character of the guys in them.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them solid.

And the uniform comment was in jest, hence the smiley.
 
Phil Greene has to set the tone. When he's on, we're dangerous.

But I'm not liking the small gym road game at all. Black uniforms too. ;)

We have to turn this into a track meet and early.
Click to expand...

We beat a solid Frank Martin South Carolina team with the black unis. Let's not start this black uniform thing again. It's not the color of the uniforms, it's the character of the guys in them.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them solid.

And the uniform comment was in jest, hence the smiley.
Click to expand...

A major conference team would scare me anyday over a WCC team not named St. Mary's, BYU, or Gonzaga.
 
Babe Ruth played in the early era of biometrics. At that time they introduced the use of moving an electrode between two charged wires set up as a narrowing irregular track with eye-hand coordination measured by fewest contacts as you moved the electrode through the track as fast as you could. Ruth's score was four standard deviations better than the mean, top .001 percent. Of course we know he never faced pitching as good as Strasbourg.
 
Jack, you really might be the most pessimistic SJ "fan" I've ever seen. I'm crazy for thinking they will storm the court if they beat us? Um...Fordham fans stormed the court a few years back when we weren't even that good. Fordham is in a better conference (A10) than the WCC. You clearly don't understand the perspective from a mid major fan. I went to an undergrad institution in the MAAC aka mid major, and people would get VERY excited if we could even bring a team like Virginia into our little gym. I know the perspective because I lived it. If all you know are cupcake schools in your conference that no one has ever heard of, you get extremely pumped when a name brand school from the Big Bad East comes in. Beating us would be a notch in their belt and something to brag about. Fans would say "we beat a Big East school". It's not so much about the individual success the team has had, it's about conference affiliation since it's the highest level. I think as SJ fans we forget our stature at times because we are used to it. But whenever I think we are doing bad I just remember that we could be in the MAAC playing 1 great out of conference team each year only to lose by 60 instead of being a major team playing the best of the best.

And you are sorely mistaken if you think guys who played in the 50's were just as strong, fast, agile, powerful, etc. as guys today. The only thing that would remain the same from then is pure shooters since if left open it doesn't matter what your condition is...you just make shots. Maybe rebounding to a certain extent also, but the players in the 50's were not nearly as athletic as college teams today. A guy like God'sgift would be among the best players on a 1950's squad no matter who they were. Look how the NFL, NBA, and NCAABB have changed over the years. It used to be a sport where a small, slow guy could make it. Not anymore. Look at MLB players too...you think Babe Ruth would still do just as well in 2012 against a 104 MPH fastball from Ardolis Chapman or Strasburg? What I'm saying is, talent is mostly innate, but the condition, ability, and endurance of athletes today is WAY superior to their 1950's counterparts. Can't even see how you can argue the opposite.
Click to expand...

Overall athletes are better conditioned today, but despite this, the exceptional athletes of their era would likely still be exceptional performers. Bob Feller could throw 100 mph in the 50s. After reading extensively on Joe DiMaggio, whose unreal 5 tool talents were honed about as sharply as possible would still be amazing. Willie Mays or Mantle - still are among the most talented athletes ever to step onto a field, and would be just as good or better today. You forget that in MLB, only 16 teams existed then so there was no dilution of talent.

Basketball - well again, overall players are more athletic, but without a doubt Russell, Chamberlain, Baylor would still be great. Connie Hawkins, (circa 1960) had a game that still would be revolutionary. To think that God's gift was even remotely in their class about as dopey a thing you could possibly say.

I understand your point about bigger, faster players overall. Then again, if NFL players from that era played today, they would be better conditioned, and stronger and faster, espiecally on the lines. The great ones would still be great, and the only thing I'd agree on is that the smaller, less athletic baseball and football players would have a harder time making a squad.
 
Babe Ruth played in the early era of biometrics. At that time they introduced the use of moving an electrode between two charged wires set up as a narrowing irregular track with eye-hand coordination measured by fewest contacts as you moved the electrode through the track as fast as you could. Ruth's score was four standard deviations better than the mean, top .001 percent. Of course we know he never faced pitching as good as Strasbourg.
Click to expand...

Of course, you must know Babe Ruth was a more accomplished pitcher than Strasborg is at this point. From what I can tell, Whitey Ford (50s) might have been even better today, the way players strike out at alarming rates. Koufax (50s), Gibson (60s) Marichal (60s) Seaver (60s), Drysdale (50s), Bunning (60s), Palmer (60s), would all be as good or better today then they were in their own eras.

* years in parenthese were decade that player came up.
 
Babe Ruth played in the early era of biometrics. At that time they introduced the use of moving an electrode between two charged wires set up as a narrowing irregular track with eye-hand coordination measured by fewest contacts as you moved the electrode through the track as fast as you could. Ruth's score was four standard deviations better than the mean, top .001 percent. Of course we know he never faced pitching as good as Strasbourg.
Click to expand...

That's really interesting wow. But I would also look into the stats and how they were recorded as well as the norms used. You would be amazed how many professionals mess up statistics and use methods that are clearly wrong but still get paid doing it. But yes no way a chubby out of shape Ruth could generate the bat speed to hit a hard throwing pitcher today.

If that is true though, I think it's interesting to make this comparison to see how crazy that really is. If you take Ruth's score in that test, it's the equivalent of him getting a score of 160 on his IQ (4 SD's above mean) and that would make him a Mensa member :nerd:
 
I haven't looked up all the WCC records over the past years but, USF has beaten Gonzaga and St. Mary's DURING THE LAST 10 YEARS.
Click to expand...

USF has beaten the Zags in Memorial Gym three years in a row. Just FYI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top