(01-10-2018 10:34 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 09:51 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 08:38 PM)Rocco Wrote:  Just looking at Win Shares, which only goes back to 1995:

Quinn McDowell: 13.9
Prewitt: 13.3
Moran: 12.6
Tarpey: 12.0
Thornton: 10.8
Schneider: 10.2
Rusthoven: 10.2
Dixon: 8.9
Bracy: 8.4
Hess: 7.8 (just at W&M)
Knight: 4.7 (and counting)

Win Shares (like most advanced metrics) is a blunt tool not meant for precise delineations. If two players are within a win of each other you could make an argument for either one. I was a little shocked to see McDowell atop the list. My personal pick is Moran but I'm biased because I watched him and he had no help.

That list is a mess. Do you know the formula behind win shares because I seriously judge any metric that has Quinn McDowell as the best player in since 1995.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/about/ws.html

McDowell's sophomore and junior years were really good and senior year was pedestrian. He forgot how to shoot as a senior. Also W&M played at a slower tempo those years then they do now so that probably makes his numbers look better (lots of points on fewer possessions). I don't buy it either. If I'm picking an all-time W&M team I'm probably picking everyone on that list ahead of him, and that's not meant as a dig at McDowell.

Quinn benefits from the 2010 NIT team having lots of wins, and therefore win shares to go around, and from being the statistically best player on the 2011 team by a long shot, garnering 4+ WS when nobody else had 2. Those two seasons account for 8-9 of his 13.9 WS. The 2012 was Marcus Thornton's first, where Thornton actually went for negative WS because we were so bad. For win shares, the individual totals have to add up to the team win total. Bad teams get low win shares, but let's not derail this thread with discussions of why win shares is good or bad. This is why that list is as it is.

Back to this thread, absolutely Nathan can be the best player we've ever had. I would argue he is on that track. There's a lot of games between now and then, though.