Jean Marc Koumadje Visiting August 22nd | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Jean Marc Koumadje Visiting August 22nd

Status
Not open for further replies.
Waquoit said:
I dunno, wasn't the voting by objective observers? And they didn't lose in the regular season. And they only missed the FF by a bucket. Nelson was a deserving choice, not like that fraud Jimmer.
Expand ...

Jimmer was a much better player in 2011 than Nelson was in 2004. In '04, Nelson was 13th in the country with 6.6 WS, second on his own team to Delonte West's 7.0 (whie Okafor led the nation with 9.9). Fredette was 2nd in the country with 8.5, behind only Walker's 9.7. Jimmer was still the wrong choice, but it was much more defensible than Nelson.
 
nomar said:
I agree that Duke shouldn't have been favored as much as they were. But we were #1 for the majority only because Duke lost in Alaska and we took their place until we lost to Cuse. Duke never lost again until March 29.

Taking on what someone else said (and a lot of people on this board have said over the years), I really don't think it's arguable that we had as much "talent." They had Elton Brand (NPOY, 1st Team AA, 1st overall pick in 1999), Trajan Langdon (2nd Team AA, 11th overall pick in 1999), Corey Maggette (explosive scorer, 13th overall pick in 1999), Will Avery (3rd guy on this list to shoot over 40% from 3, 14th overall pick in 1999), Shane Battier (3-time NDPOY including 1999, 6th overall pick in 2001), and Chris Carawell (10 ppg scorer, 1st Team AA in 2000, 41th overall pick in 2000).

We didn't have more talent. We had depth, and a coach with the brains and balls to use it. We had a better game plan. We had heart. And we have the ability as winners to write the history books. It's not an insult to say we beat a team with more overall talent. It makes it more impressive. 2004, on the other hand, was a different story. We were better than they were.
Expand ...
I said something similar on here a few months back and got a lot of flak for it. I still don't get the urge to say in retrospect that we were secretly the favorite or something. To me it makes it better that we took down this supposedly unbeatable team -- and Duke, of all teams. They really were that good. We were just better when it counted.
 
mcs333 said:
Many at Duke are still haunted by the lost in 1999. They feel that team was the best ever at Duke. They ave. 92 points a game, 5 starter ave in double digits, Battier ave 9 and two other players ave. 5 pts. Off the bench. They gave up 67 PPG thus a winning margin of 25 PPG. They went 16-0 in the ACC. They were 1 number or top 4 in every offensive category except FF , 70%. That's why the spread was double digits in the championship game. We were the better team that night but not the most talented. We had the best best game plan and executed it perfectly. Jim C out coached K that night.
Expand ...

The argument that they were the best team ever is BS though, even though they put up great numbers against the competition.

I can think of 5 teams who would beat them without even trying (eg LJ running Rebels), including out own 2004 Huskies.
 
CallMeBruce said:
Jimmer was a much better player in 2011 than Nelson was in 2004. In '04, Nelson was 13th in the country with 6.6 WS, second on his own team to Delonte West's 7.0 (whie Okafor led the nation with 9.9). Fredette was 2nd in the country with 8.5, behind only Walker's 9.7. Jimmer was still the wrong choice, but it was much more defensible than Nelson.
Expand ...

The problem is that voters only take into account one side of the floor. It was clear to any object observer that Kemba was the far more complete player than Fredette.

Also, voters seem to favor guys from smaller conferences who put up bigger numbers, discounting guys' efforts who play against superior competition.

Oak was a more complete player than Jameer (DNPOY proves that). And KW was far more complete than Jimmer, who couldn't play one lick of defense at all (zone based hid his deficiencies).
 
.-.
Inyatkin said:
We were just better when it counted.
Expand ...

I think you don't give UConn enough credit here. "Just better when it counted?" Bollocks, we were a better team period. Rip actually shot under 50% that game. The Alaskan Assassin was the guy who shot out of his mind, and they still lost.
 
Inyatkin said:
I said something similar on here a few months back and got a lot of flak for it. I still don't get the urge to say in retrospect that we were secretly the favorite or something. To me it makes it better that we took down this supposedly unbeatable team -- and Duke, of all teams. They really were that good. We were just better when it counted.
Expand ...

Is anyone saying they weren't the favorite? I think people are saying that the talent gap is closer than most think. The results of the game bore that out. I mean, we were the definitive #2 team in the country that year.
 
intlzncster said:
The problem is that voters only take into account one side of the floor. It was clear to any object observer that Kemba was the far more complete player than Fredette.

Also, voters seem to favor guys from smaller conferences who put up bigger numbers, discounting guys' efforts who play against superior competition.

Oak was a more complete player than Jameer (DNPOY proves that). And KW was far more complete than Jimmer, who couldn't play one lick of defense at all (zone based hid his deficiencies).
Expand ...

Don't get me wrong: I'm absolutely NOT arguing for Fredette over Kemba. Kemba was the most valuable player in the country in 2011 by a pretty fair margin. I'm merely comparing the ridiculousness of choosing Fredette in 2011 vs. Nelson in 2004. Fredette was the second-best player in the country, SOS aside (though BYU played a tougher slate than I had realized). He was clearly behind Walker, but it's still not as bad as choosing Nelson, the 13th-best player in the country and the 2nd-best player on St. Joseph's, especially when Okafor had an even better season for UConn in 2004 than Kemba did in 2011 (statistically speaking, though the margin is quite small). Both of those NPOY awards should have gone to the UConn player in question (as the '96 award should have gone to Ray Allen), but I think that Fredette's win is more defensible than Nelson's.
 
superjohn said:
Rip destroyed Brand in the title game and took home the hardware, that's all that matters and you are definitely in the minority thinking UConn had more talent than Duke.
Expand ...
Rip had a better game thanks to help defense on Brand and none of the help came from Rip. Player of the game easily goes to Rip for his offense.
 
CallMeBruce said:
... He was clearly behind Walker, but it's still not as bad as choosing Nelson, the 13th-best player in the country ... I think that Fredette's win is more defensible than Nelson's.
Expand ...

You are basing your entire argument on an advanced stat that wasn't developed until a few years ago. And the data doesn't even exist to use it retroactively with the same precision as present day, the best you do is an approximation. Any stat that says Nelson was only the 13th best player that year is questionable.
 
Waquoit said:
I think you don't give UConn enough credit here. "Just better when it counted?" Bollocks, we were a better team period. Rip actually shot under 50% that game. The Alaskan Assassin was the guy who shot out of his mind, and they still lost.
Expand ...
ugh, read nomar's post. Not going to get into one of those "UConn was so a good team!" things again.
 
.-.
Waquoit said:
You are basing your entire argument on an advanced stat that wasn't developed until a few years ago. And the data doesn't even exist to use it retroactively with the same precision as present day, the best you do is an approximation. Any stat that says Nelson was only the 13th best player that year is questionable.
Expand ...

It's not that hard to see. West was a much more efficient scorer for SJ that year than Nelson was because he made shots at a higher rate both from 2 and from 3, and he created fouls at a higher rate than Nelson (and made a much higher percentage of his FTs), as well. Their scoring rates are very close despite Nelson using 3 more shots/40 minutes. I don't see any valid statistical argument to be made for Nelson being better than West that year. http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?p1=jameer-nelson&p2=delonte-west
 
intlzncster said:
The argument that they were the best team ever is BS though, even though they put up great numbers against the competition.

I can think of 5 teams who would beat them without even trying (eg LJ running Rebels), including out own 2004 Huskies.
Expand ...

I said best ever at Duke not all time.
 
mcs333 said:
I said best ever at Duke not all time.
Expand ...

My bad dude. I read too fast. I'd love to see 99 Duke against Laettner/Hurley Duke.

I can't believe I just said that.
 
Waquoit said:
I dunno, wasn't the voting by objective observers? And they didn't lose in the regular season. And they only missed the FF by a bucket. Nelson was a deserving choice, not like that fraud Jimmer.
Expand ...

Fredette's raw stats are extremely comparable to Nelson's. He was more turnover prone, but other than that they're about equal.

But I do agree that win shares is certainly flawed to an extent(especially in basketball).
 
intlzncster said:
I'd caution against using draft slot to prove talent though, especially future draft slot (as a player might spend a year or two more developing in college). UK was supposedly more talented than us last year, and will have more drafted players from those two teams in the final analysis, but if you look at who had the most talent on the floor that night, it was UCONN.
Expand ...

Future draft slots, I agree, aren't all that relevant, but where a player was drafted after the season in question is a pretty fair indicator of how good the player was that year (allowing for 1 & done guys like Orton). The fact that Battier went #6 after his senior year isn't proof of how good he was in 1999; the fact that he was the Defensive Player of the Year was. And the fact that Carawell was ACC POY the following year doesn't prove how good he was in 1999, but considering he was only a rotational player on that team, that tells you they had some good talent. I just don't agree with your final sentence. There are many reasons why we won but a superior overall level of talent just isn't one of them. We can agree that it was an awesome game and there were many cries and hugs to be had on the Duke bench afterward, regardless of how talented they were.
 
.-.
.-.
Did you notice further down in that article, Ali is planning visits to UCLA and Louisville. Why would he consider those better programs that UConn?
 
SallyH said:
Did you notice further down in that article, Ali is planning visits to UCLA and Louisville. Why would he consider those better programs that UConn?
Expand ...

Where did he say he considered them better programs than UConn?
 
SallyH said:
Did you notice further down in that article, Ali is planning visits to UCLA and Louisville. Why would he consider those better programs that UConn?
Expand ...
We all know this is about a lot more than which program is perceived as being "better," not that he even said that's why he's visiting those schools in the first place.
 
SallyH said:
Did you notice further down in that article, Ali is planning visits to UCLA and Louisville. Why would he consider those better programs that UConn?
Expand ...
they are "clo$er to home" in Prince's words...lol
 
SallyH said:
Did you notice further down in that article, Ali is planning visits to UCLA and Louisville. Why would he consider those better programs that UConn?
Expand ...
Ucla is a pretty good basketball and located in California, why wouldn't a kid want to go there.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,277
Messages
4,561,072
Members
10,454
Latest member
Uconn84


Top Bottom