CSNbbs

Not nearly as active as this one. Davidson and CofC have boards, but none of them compare to this one.

(01-06-2010 02:44 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote: [ -> ]Not nearly as active as this one. Davidson and CofC have boards, but none of them compare to this one.

Maybe not...but we are the only program that is in a state of civil war. That plays a part. I am certain.

I will say the Davidson board probably had a little more activity than this one when Steph Curry was there and during their Elite 8 run but this season I would say we have more traffic.

(01-06-2010 02:44 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote: [ -> ]Not nearly as active as this one. Davidson and CofC have boards, but none of them compare to this one.

Looking at thread/post count on the many Moc boards I would have to disagree with you. It seems to be at least as active as ours if not more so.

First time I have been to the CoC site but it looks to be pretty active as well. 2743 Topics with 22540 Posts. of the 25 posts on the front page 8 have respsonses from today, 13 yesterday and the other 4 Monday, that is pretty good turnover.

(01-06-2010 02:30 PM)Goldfinger Wrote: [ -> ]Actually it was I who showed the flaw in Statman's argument.

I would point out that Smith's three came when Murray pulled our defense back to the half court.

I would also point out that 90% of Ben Smith's 29 points came after Hubbard fouled out and we already had the game won.


Try try again. Or not. I don't care.

Well you suckered me. You proved nothing about Statman's argument. You went right back to your what ifs.

As far as Hubbard's defense, again how did he become part of this? You said CP and Tiggs were known for their stingy defense. That was my point in stating Smith's scoring numbers. You went off topic Gold.

I didn't go off topic. The game plan changed between the Jacksonville game here and the tournament game. Tommy Hubbard had Ben Smith in the tournament game. By the time Hubbard fouled out...the game was essentially over and that's when Ben Smith went wild. By this time we were playing somewhat conservative and didn't deploy the Tiggs/Pigram press. Therefor your mentioning of Ben Smith's 29 point game in the tournament is...off topic.


Statman's whole argument is a what if. What if Sanders had turned in three years like his junior year. Or what if Emmerson had turned in four years like his junior year? Hell, he's on course to turning in a similar performance in his senior year. None of which addresses the statistical fact that Rodriguez has never led the A-sun in single season double doubles.

Please tell us again how much better Jonathan Rodriguez is than Mike Smith and Tommy Hubbard. Your on one hell of a roll.

(01-06-2010 05:01 PM)Goldfinger Wrote: [ -> ]Please tell us again how much better Jonathan Rodriguez is than Mike Smith and Tommy Hubbard. Your on one hell of a roll.

You asked. Here are the numbers -

Freshman –
Mike Smith - All Freshman Team 11 ppg/3.7 rpg/1.7 apg/0.2 blocks/1.1 steals
Tommy Hubbard - No recognition 0.6 ppg/1.2 rpg/0.25 apg/0.3 apg/.04 blocks
Jonathan Rodriguez - All Freshman team/First Team All-Conference 17.3 ppg/8.8 rpg/3.0 apg/1.1 blocks/1.5 steals
"The Miami, Fla., native ranked in the top-15 in nine different conference statistics and led the league in rebounding."

Sophomore –
Mike Smith – No recognition 7 ppg/4.7rpg/1.3 apg/0.8 steals/0.5 blocks/
Tommy Hubbard – No recognition 4.0 ppg/4.8 rpg/0.4 apg/0.4 steals/0.13 blocks
Jonathan Rodriguez – First Team All-Conference 21 ppg/10.2 rpg/2.5 apg/1.6 steals/0.6 blocks
“Rodriguez averaged a double-double for the season, leading the conference in scoring at 21.0 points per game and grabbing 10.2 rebounds per game. He ranks among only six in the nation averaging at least 20 points per game and 10 rebounds per game.”

Junior –
Mike Smith – No recognition 15.3 ppg/7.7 rpg/2.1 apg/1.4 steals/0.5 blocks
Tommy Hubbard – In progress
Jonathan Rodriguez – Second Team All-Conference 15.6 ppg/8.3 rpg/1.9 apg/1.3 steals/0.3 blocks

Rodriguez has outperformed Mike and vastly outperformed Tommy in virtually every statistical category every year. Mike of course isn't playing right now so we can't compare this year fairly.

Even in Tommy's current breakout year (where he is more than just a defensive stopper) he is getting outscored by Rodriguez 18.1/15.2 and outrebounded by Rodriguez 9.1/8.3.

The main reason I'd say Rodriguez is better than Mike is when you match up their numbers there's only one year when Mike has played on par with Rodriguez - last year. That was also Mike's best career year and Rodriguez's worst.

Tommy is having a great half a year - and still isn't playing as well as Rodriguez who is wrapping up a fantastic CAREER. That is the difference. Rodriguez has done this for four years. The same cannot be said about Mike and Tommy.

Once again you lack all notion of nuance.

I realize that this discussion is a rhetorical excercise at this point, but I want to make 2 points: First, Rodriguez would not put up those kind of numbers if he played at ETSU. Similarly, Hubbard and Smith would have far greater statistics if they were at CU. There are two fundamental reasons for this: While CU looks to be much improved this season, they have not been near as good as we have the last 4 years. Since we're analysing stats, just look at a comparison of RPI's over that the last 4 year's of ETSU and CU respectively starting with this year's RPI: 128, 116,153, 125 to 200, 256, 334, 286 (Source: Statsheet.com). The primary reason for this? CU players, on average, have not been as good as ours over this 4-yr. time frame. If Rodriguez would have played alongside the likes of Tiggs, Pigram, Smith, Strong, etc., would he have put up near double-double performances throughout his career? Practically speaking, would have Rodriquez had the opportunities (e.g., offensive touches) to put up numbers? Alternatively, can you imagine the kind of production Tiggs and CP would have at Campbell?

On a wholly statistical basis, you are correct in concluding that Rodriguez is the better player. My argument is simply that you must consider the context of those numbers, too--i.e., Getting an A in Music Appreciaion is different than getting an A in Organic Chemistry.

(01-07-2010 12:07 PM)Bucfaithful Wrote: [ -> ]I realize that this discussion is a rhetorical excercise at this point, but I want to make 2 points: First, Rodriguez would not put up those kind of numbers if he played at ETSU. Similarly, Hubbard and Smith would have far greater statistics if they were at CU. There are two fundamental reasons for this: While CU looks to be much improved this season, they have not been near as good as we have the last 4 years. The primary reason for this? CU players, on average, have not been as good as ours over this 4-yr. time frame. If Rodriguez would have played alongside the likes of Tiggs, Pigram, Smith, Strong, etc., would he have put up near double-double performances throughout his career? Practically speaking, would have Rodriquez had the opportunities (e.g., offensive touches) to put up numbers. Alternatively, can you imagine the kind of production Tiggs and CP would have at Campbell?

On a wholly statistical basis, you are corrects and concluding that Rodriguez is the better player. My argument is simply that you must consider the context of those numbers too--i.e., Getting an A in Music Appreciaion is different than getting an A in Organic Chemistry.

Exactly, Sir. When viewing statistics it is easy, for some, to interpret with simplicity. Yet in reality there are countless variables. This is where a good eye and a healthy ability for reasoning come in to play.

(01-07-2010 11:59 AM)Goldfinger Wrote: [ -> ]Once again you lack all notion of nuance.

And your entire argument is based on nuance.

I agree statistics do not tell the entire story. However, when looking at Mike Smith and Tommy Hubbard, they do not "scare" me. Mike has achieved his numbers by being a third option for us. He has not been our key guy. He has not ever been the priority of the other team's defense. I question his ability to take over a game. He just doesn't play that style of game in my opinion. I've already stated on here on another thread previous that I do not think Tommy is that great of a scorer. He simply takes twice as many shots as everyone else on the team. He takes quite a few bad shots. I think he has gotten a big head and thinks he is a better player than he is. I do not fear him as well. I think we have several other people on our team who, if given the minutes and green light to shoot as much as they want like Tommy, could reproduce his numbers.

I do not agree that they would outperform Rodriguez if they played at Campbell. If the entire offense was reliant on them, on a team without additional talent, I do not see them performing at as high a level. Tiggs and CP would have. No doubt in my mind. Smith and Hubbard are not that caliber of player in my opinion. They need a team around them, because they need to score inside of an offense.

Again, Rodriguez has proven he can do this. It is simply speculation about Tommy and Mike. Ignore the numbers all you want. If Rodriguez was at ETSU we would all be gushing about him.

You're gushing at him already

I just don't understand this obsession with him. It's rather rediculous.

(01-07-2010 12:43 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote: [ -> ]I agree statistics do not tell the entire story. However, when looking at I think he has gotten a big head and thinks he is a better player than he is. I do not fear him as well. I think we have several other people on our team who, if given the minutes and green light to shoot as much as they want like Tommy, could reproduce his numbers.

Again, Rodriguez has proven he can do this. It is simply speculation about Tommy and Mike. Ignore the numbers all you want. If Rodriguez was at ETSU we would all be gushing about him.

I don't appreciate your speculation about Tommy's "big head". The kid epitomizes selflessness.

Speaking of numbers....I wonder what kind of poll numbers Rodriguez would receive from A-sun fans on this league vs Mike Smith. (they haven't seen enough of Tommy) Of course to be fair etsu fans and campbell fans would have to be excluded.

(01-07-2010 12:55 PM)Bucfaithful Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2010 12:43 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote: [ -> ]I agree statistics do not tell the entire story. However, when looking at I think he has gotten a big head and thinks he is a better player than he is. I do not fear him as well. I think we have several other people on our team who, if given the minutes and green light to shoot as much as they want like Tommy, could reproduce his numbers.

Again, Rodriguez has proven he can do this. It is simply speculation about Tommy and Mike. Ignore the numbers all you want. If Rodriguez was at ETSU we would all be gushing about him.

I don't appreciate your speculation about Tommy's "big head". The kid epitomizes selflessness.

Didn't he give up an entire year of eligibility to help ensure Pigram and Tiggs reach the NCAA? Or have I lost my damn mind?

(01-07-2010 12:07 PM)Bucfaithful Wrote: [ -> ]I realize that this discussion is a rhetorical excercise at this point, but I want to make 2 points: First, Rodriguez would not put up those kind of numbers if he played at ETSU. Similarly, Hubbard and Smith would have far greater statistics if they were at CU. There are two fundamental reasons for this: While CU looks to be much improved this season, they have not been near as good as we have the last 4 years. Since we're analysing stats, just look at a comparison of RPI's over that the last 4 year's of ETSU and CU respectively starting with this year's RPI: 128, 116,153, 125 to 200, 256, 334, 286 (Source: Statsheet.com). The primary reason for this? CU players, on average, have not been as good as ours over this 4-yr. time frame. If Rodriguez would have played alongside the likes of Tiggs, Pigram, Smith, Strong, etc., would he have put up near double-double performances throughout his career? Practically speaking, would have Rodriquez had the opportunities (e.g., offensive touches) to put up numbers? Alternatively, can you imagine the kind of production Tiggs and CP would have at Campbell?

On a wholly statistical basis, you are correct in concluding that Rodriguez is the better player. My argument is simply that you must consider the context of those numbers, too--i.e., Getting an A in Music Appreciaion is different than getting an A in Organic Chemistry.

Not sure I buy your agrument that Rodriquez would have had less of career with better players around him. How do you explain the fact
Dennis, Jennings and Talford the #2,4 and 5 scorers all time at ETUS played together along with West, Geer,Silvers all 1000+ point scores and Rodney English with his 998 in 3 years. Seems to me the more great players you have the more then can produce not the opposite.

I can't believe somone is calling Hubbard a selfish player, he gave up a redshirt to play a hand full of games to help the team. Yeah that is pretty damn selfish.