Which line is more productive?
- Thread starter urfan1
- Start date
So, Bryce vs Julius; numbers are similar. But if you saw the game, you would say that Julius fit in much better with the flow.
Well, the question needs more info. What is the purpose of the question? If we knew that, maybe we could give some reasonable answers. You asked about being productive, but how would we know that without knowing the situation? When did these numbers happen? At exactly the same time with exactly the same situation? If so, I guess we would have enough info to answer. If not, I am not sure how to answer. I will lean on Ulla giving a good answer here if he saw the game since these numbers, being such a small sample size, depend on when during the game they happened, who each guy was on the floor with, and who the other team had on the floor. Not trying to be difficult, but I have no idea how to honestly answer this.
Question is very simple, which line is more productive? Posters are stating opinions based upon their visuals. So now add the lines and take a position. I understand different times of game, etc, but the players can only play when the Coach puts him on the floor. Not asking for opinions about who is better player on one line, who should start, who should have more minutes, just simply who had the best line?
I’d take A. If you’re adding in only 5 points a game, I’d like you to be contributing in another way. The rebounds stick out (especially for our historically anemic rebounding under Mooney).
Both were productive. Thought player A played more aggressively, trying to make something happen. And was free to do so, influenced by who he was on the floor with. while B played his roll nicely within the system, mostly while paired up with others that are better scoring options. Both brought good energy, but A's was more visible offensively while B's was probably more visible defensively.
I like A better. The 3 assists for B are nice, but I like the 8 rebounds in 12 minutes a lot. That shows a player who is very active and pursuing the ball. And 3-6 on free throws needs some work. But again, to earn 6 free throws in 12 minutes requires some really aggressiveness in going to the basket.
Part of the reason I posted this was to have posters compare the stat lines. Several posters were saying A (Bryce) could not play at this level, or should be red-shirted. Over the long season B (JJ) will likely add more to the team, but A was only playing his first collegiate game. Way to early to make any realistic evaluations about Bryce. If I had to predict I believe he will be one of those bench players that we have longed for. Let's give him a chance.
You may well be right -- it's a good problem to have to have kids on the bench fighting for playing time.
I missed people saying that and didn’t he already use the red shirt?
I only saw people mentioning that Andre & Sal could benefit from a redshirt. Not that I agree.
Here is one comment that lead to my post, I may be in error about the red-shirt. I'm not saying Bryce will be all conference, but I believe he is better than some others believe, and I felt he needed some support.
"Schneider is NOT ready to contribute much at this level. Don't expect to get to know him well this season. "
"Schneider is NOT ready to contribute much at this level. Don't expect to get to know him well this season. "
I appreciate UR-Fan1's effort to give some "love" to Bryce. However, Bryce has one "hole" in his game and that is critical in our system: Outside shooting.
Otherwise, I really like Bryce's effort, his toughness inside, and his willingness to take it to the rack and rebound. He is currently our 11th-13th guy largely because he has not shot the ball well at all from outside or from the line (including high-school and his red-shirt year). If he greatly improves his shooting he will get minutes. If he does not improve his shooting I see him getting only 0-3 minutes per game, in games we win handily.
The "line comparison" above ignores that not a single shot was taken other than a lay-up or foul shot, and I believe we saw (and will see) 50% shooting from the foul-line too. That won't do it to earn minutes on a team with the shooting talent we now have.
Otherwise, I really like Bryce's effort, his toughness inside, and his willingness to take it to the rack and rebound. He is currently our 11th-13th guy largely because he has not shot the ball well at all from outside or from the line (including high-school and his red-shirt year). If he greatly improves his shooting he will get minutes. If he does not improve his shooting I see him getting only 0-3 minutes per game, in games we win handily.
The "line comparison" above ignores that not a single shot was taken other than a lay-up or foul shot, and I believe we saw (and will see) 50% shooting from the foul-line too. That won't do it to earn minutes on a team with the shooting talent we now have.
Question is not simple at all. It would be simple if you asked which stats are better if all else is equal. But, you are asking which line was more productive or best when there is no way of knowing that. My point is how would anyone know which line is more productive unless you saw the game and knew exactly when and how these lines occurred. Stats are far from a tell all. Same with the word best in the last part of your post. How can we know who had the best line if we did not see the game and know exactly when these lines happened?
Shouldn't the question simply be who played better, Bryce or JJ? For example, in football, the losing QB often has better stats than the winning QB because being behind all game, he might throw more and get a late TD pass or two. However, many times when seeing the game and not just focusing on the stats, it would be clear that the winning QB had the better game, and is the better player. Or, even sticking to basketball, if one guy starts and goes against a top defender, his stats might not be as good as a back up who plays against a lesser opponent, but that does not mean he did not play better.
Sorry, but your question was not based only on the line. Look at your your thread title. You asked which line was more productive, which has everything to do with eye test and timing.
I will go with 8 rebounds in 12 minutes. We have scorers but never have enough rebounds! Rebounds keep the posession alive offensively and end the scoring threat on the defensive end, something we have sorely lacked the last 8 years or so!
I agree the rebounds show potential but we should also be cautious. Especially if the 8 rebounds came after the score was 65-32 and Oddo had already gotten his minutes.
I found myself rooting for Bryce more than I would have anticipated, in an underdog kind of way. My take on him from just the game on Saturday is that he was active. That was a good sign to me. Responding to Oldie above, I had thought that outside shooting was supposed to be a plus for him. Either way, I do not go to practice or anything, so the only time I have actually seen him play was the game on Saturday.
I am not sure where he will fall into the rotation once the season gets going. But based on when he was subbed into things against Hampden-Sydney, my guess is that Mooney will not play him very much.
I am not sure where he will fall into the rotation once the season gets going. But based on when he was subbed into things against Hampden-Sydney, my guess is that Mooney will not play him very much.
There are many positive things I'd say about Skrocki, but "slasher" wouldn't be among them. Fairly good, high-volume outside shooter with a short memory if he was off.
We also had a small forward roughly 10-years back, named Kevin Smith, if memory serves me, who I believe became an assistant coach, or DBO.. He also had a "slasher" reputation and limited outside shooting range. Their games are similar, and I am hoping that Player A has a better outside shot, down-the-road, than KS. Player A is a good athlete, and can elevate far better than most might expect. KS could elevate nicely too.
Kevin Smith may be the best athlete we have had in my 30 years of watching Spiders basketball. I go 1) K Smith 2) Curtis Blair 3) Scott Stapleton. Probably missing someone in there.
Weathers had some really nice dunks from time to time, and had a nice shooting stroke. Really seemed like a guy that could have been an absolute terror.
Burroughs and Lindsay very good athletes too.
Burroughs and Lindsay very good athletes too.
Ton Dobbins was a pretty fair athlete too, and should be in the mix. He was also more of a "slasher" than outside shooter.
Player A may not qualify as one of our all-time best athletes, but he is far more athletic than most posters here might expect and has some surprising toughness. Player A has some similarities to Dobbins, if we want to think 'best-case" scenario.
Player A may not qualify as one of our all-time best athletes, but he is far more athletic than most posters here might expect and has some surprising toughness. Player A has some similarities to Dobbins, if we want to think 'best-case" scenario.
Similar threads
