CSNbbs

(03-06-2017 11:23 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]I think that anyone who is expecting for JJ to change his style, regardless of personnel or any other factor, is fooling his or herself. The system is what it is, and players will either play within it or they will not play. If there is one thing about this program that I am certain of, that is it.

This is absolutely correct. JJ is what he is and will not change. What you see is what you get. Two examples of this are: 1) playing Baker 30 plus minutes a game 2) refusing to play Kah....

(03-07-2017 07:47 AM)blewbyu Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2017 11:23 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]I think that anyone who is expecting for JJ to change his style, regardless of personnel or any other factor, is fooling his or herself. The system is what it is, and players will either play within it or they will not play. If there is one thing about this program that I am certain of, that is it.

This is absolutely correct. JJ is what he is and will not change. What you see is what you get. Two examples of this are: 1) playing Baker 30 plus minutes a game 2) refusing to play Kah....

I cannot believe he plays over 30 minutes per game. That kills me.

As a Junior, Dahi averaged 11.9 pts, 4.8 rebounds, 1.0 blocks, 0.474 FG, and 0.781 FT
As a Junior, VV averaged 8.8 pts, 4.5 rebounds, 0.4 blocks, 0.447 FG, and 0.632 FT
As a Junior, Stith averaged 9.9 pts, 6.8 rebounds, 1.4 blocks, 0.508 FG, and 0.632 FT

I know we're all prone to revisionist history, so I wanted to throw some facts into this opinion-based debate. Both Dahi and VV played in a front court centric offense, while Stith's team obviously is a guard centric offense. The main difference between Stith and Dahi on offense is that Dahi took 1.4 more shots per game, but made 0.6 less shots--mostly compensated for by his ability to make threes. On the defensive side, Stith dominates both VV and Dahi in every statistical category...and it's not even close.

Both of their stats were lower because the offense ran through Alex their first three years.
Valdas exploded once given the opportunity as a number 1 type guy.

Stith has been our number 1 post option for the last two years and done nothing with it. Stith can't shoot from outside of 6 feet while valdas and dahi could drain 3's and stretch defenses.

How the hell is this even up for debate? Oh right, it's not, it's just one troll.

(03-07-2017 06:45 AM)mac Wrote: [ -> ]I'll agree that Dahi and Val are better then Stith, but by all accounts, do not question that kids work ethic . His main problem has been he's been injured both years he's been here. The kid is a warrior. No outside shot past 10,12 feet perhaps but to question his work ethic and toughness, that's nuts. Just look what happened when he went down the second half of the first Marshall game. We need Stith in the game and in the paint. The main problem this year with Stith is I think he tried to come back too soon from a high ankle sprain, which for a basketball player is just about the worse injury you can have. And just look at his foul shooting. Last year and early this year he rivaled Taylor for who was worse on the team. Now Stith is more then decent from the foul line. How did that happen? He worked at it, hard.

Stith is a much better defender and rebounder than either but not as good offensivley. Stiths skillset is a good fit with the players we have right now as long as he doesnt try to do too much. People dont seem to understand how good he is; the biggest issue has been health

(03-07-2017 07:30 PM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2017 06:45 AM)mac Wrote: [ -> ]I'll agree that Dahi and Val are better then Stith, but by all accounts, do not question that kids work ethic . His main problem has been he's been injured both years he's been here. The kid is a warrior. No outside shot past 10,12 feet perhaps but to question his work ethic and toughness, that's nuts. Just look what happened when he went down the second half of the first Marshall game. We need Stith in the game and in the paint. The main problem this year with Stith is I think he tried to come back too soon from a high ankle sprain, which for a basketball player is just about the worse injury you can have. And just look at his foul shooting. Last year and early this year he rivaled Taylor for who was worse on the team. Now Stith is more then decent from the foul line. How did that happen? He worked at it, hard.

Stith is a much better defender and rebounder than either but not as good offensivley. Stiths skillset is a good fit with the players we have right now as long as he doesnt try to do too much. People dont seem to understand how good he is; the biggest issue has been health

It's always funny to me when novices think scoring is the only factor in determining a player's value.

Sent from my SM-N920V using CSNbbs mobile app

Stith is a good player who appears to have a good work ethic. He's just not as skilled as Dahi or Valdas. Not as good on the offensive end. But he impacts the rest of the game more so than Valdas or Dahi did.

(03-07-2017 06:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2017 12:43 AM)Prideofalion Wrote: [ -> ]This fan base sucks. Funny how the aweful CUSA keeps winning games in the NCAA. It's embarrassing to use RPI as your only foundation for argument. Understandable I guess coming from someone who doesn't know **** about hoops.

RPI is the foundation the committee uses. And what metric do you use? Kenpom? Sagerin? BPI? None of those show this conference in a better light. I actually think the conference would have potential if it shed the dead weight. Without naming names, when 4 of teams are going to be 300+ every year and then another 2 of the remaining 10 are 250+ in rebuilding years, you get a 25th ranked conference with only 1 team in the top 100.

I do agree that if we were in the CAA with the same team, we would be ranked about 50 places higher, but that's the point. If we were to be in a 10 team conference without the 4 schools that are 300+ every year, we would be in the top 100 right now. We wouldn't be a tournament team, but MTSU would be a lock.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

I use my EYES. I don't have to look up some nerdy sagarin or kenpom ranking to think I know basketball. I also played, and watch basketball. Don't have to rely on a number to prove a point.

The committee uses RPI as a tool. Not the end all be all. They actually watch the games.

I'm just glad I don't look at everything as a number. To not take the human element into the equation at all is ridiculous. I saw where like 90 percent of the home teams won on Senior day this year.. that's crazy. To just blame the coach and not acknowledge the team played with zero energy is ludicrous.

The fact is this team had the exact same regular season record as last year. Losing half of the scoring from their best two players. This team is younger, deeper, and more athletic. Obviously trending in the right direction. Again, these are things I see with my EYES.

And here u go... ask any college coach in the country who has a better chance to beat Kansas. They are number 1 or 2 in RPI. Who has a better chance to beat them? La Tech or William and Mary? La Tech is 114 and William and Mary is 115. I'm thinking LA Tech would be the answer. And this is why CUSA can make noise on a national level... because the talent is there. The numbers just aren't, for whatever reason. As a whole the product sucks, I hate this conference for travel reasons and the mens and women's teams having to charter flights all over Texas the entire month of February is ridiculous.. but anyway.

I just am tired of reading the same old RPI bull****. All that says to me is we lost a bunch of close games and beat ourselves in most of them. I see it as growing pains. Y'all prefer doom and gloom. That's cool.

And make sure u check out all these small or mid major teams in the tournament.... I bet their best players are seniors... ok I'll leave it at that.

Holy hell that was a rambling post.

Please make sure you take your "who would theoretically play Kansas better in a hypothetical matchup" argument straight to the selection committee so they can replace rpi as the measuring stick for at large bids lol.

(03-07-2017 07:48 PM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2017 07:30 PM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2017 06:45 AM)mac Wrote: [ -> ]I'll agree that Dahi and Val are better then Stith, but by all accounts, do not question that kids work ethic . His main problem has been he's been injured both years he's been here. The kid is a warrior. No outside shot past 10,12 feet perhaps but to question his work ethic and toughness, that's nuts. Just look what happened when he went down the second half of the first Marshall game. We need Stith in the game and in the paint. The main problem this year with Stith is I think he tried to come back too soon from a high ankle sprain, which for a basketball player is just about the worse injury you can have. And just look at his foul shooting. Last year and early this year he rivaled Taylor for who was worse on the team. Now Stith is more then decent from the foul line. How did that happen? He worked at it, hard.

Stith is a much better defender and rebounder than either but not as good offensivley. Stiths skillset is a good fit with the players we have right now as long as he doesnt try to do too much. People dont seem to understand how good he is; the biggest issue has been health

It's always funny to me when novices think scoring is the only factor in determining a player's value.

Sent from my SM-N920V using CSNbbs mobile app

Valdas was a better rebounder and MUCH better offensive player. He was all caa in a much tougher conference than cusa.

Stith is an undersized one-dimensional player with good shot blocking ability and good rebounding (again not as good as valdas) and that's pretty much it.

Once again, this isn't even a debate except amongst a couple irrational fools unable to see reality.

Valdas was better than stith and it's really not even close.

(03-08-2017 12:10 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2017 07:48 PM)T-Mac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2017 07:30 PM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2017 06:45 AM)mac Wrote: [ -> ]I'll agree that Dahi and Val are better then Stith, but by all accounts, do not question that kids work ethic . His main problem has been he's been injured both years he's been here. The kid is a warrior. No outside shot past 10,12 feet perhaps but to question his work ethic and toughness, that's nuts. Just look what happened when he went down the second half of the first Marshall game. We need Stith in the game and in the paint. The main problem this year with Stith is I think he tried to come back too soon from a high ankle sprain, which for a basketball player is just about the worse injury you can have. And just look at his foul shooting. Last year and early this year he rivaled Taylor for who was worse on the team. Now Stith is more then decent from the foul line. How did that happen? He worked at it, hard.

Stith is a much better defender and rebounder than either but not as good offensivley. Stiths skillset is a good fit with the players we have right now as long as he doesnt try to do too much. People dont seem to understand how good he is; the biggest issue has been health

It's always funny to me when novices think scoring is the only factor in determining a player's value.

Sent from my SM-N920V using CSNbbs mobile app

Valdas was a better rebounder and MUCH better offensive player. He was all caa in a much tougher conference than cusa.

Stith is an undersized one-dimensional player with good shot blocking ability and good rebounding (again not as good as valdas) and that's pretty much it.

Once again, this isn't even a debate except amongst a couple irrational fools unable to see reality.

Valdas was better than stith and it's really not even close.

Vasylius wasn't an All-CAA pick his Junior year. He wasn't even an All-Tournament pick. I know comparing VV's Senior year to Stith's Junior year supports your argument better, but it's illogical at best and ignorant at worst.

2 different players, 2 different coaches, 2 different systems, 2 different levels of competition.

What's the point unless we are all just killing time?

They just need to argue. This is what happens when we lose.

When we win? Silence.

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ]They just need to argue. This is what happens when we lose.

When we win? Silence.

+1

Sent from my SM-G928P using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ]They just need to argue. This is what happens when we lose.

When we win? Silence.

I'm not arguing. I'm posting facts. And I'm here when we win and lose!

(03-08-2017 12:06 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]Holy hell that was a rambling post.

Please make sure you take your "who would theoretically play Kansas better in a hypothetical matchup" argument straight to the selection committee so they can replace rpi as the measuring stick for at large bids lol.

I usually don't post much. Come on here to look for information. But it's tiresome reading the same garbage over and over.

Sorry for the rambling post, but at least I reference players or basketball related facts as opposed to the same diharrea u been spewing out of your mouth. Their RPI sucks. Our coach is booring.

How many different ways can u say the same ****.
Your opinions are laughable. But I guess because u talk the most you are the most knowledgeable?

Amateur hour around here. Terrible

FWIW, the NCAA is doing away with RPI because it is essentially just based on winning percentage, opponents win%, and opponents opponents. You can rig it to face lower teams with high expected win%s to boost RPI. And it doesn't take into account margin of victory.

(03-08-2017 04:49 PM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, the NCAA is doing away with RPI because it is essentially just based on winning percentage, opponents win%, and opponents opponents. You can rig it to face lower teams with high expected win%s to boost RPI. And it doesn't take into account margin of victory.

ODU is going to be in trouble if 'margin of victory' becomes a deciding factor for selecting post season at large bids.

(03-08-2017 08:12 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2017 04:49 PM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, the NCAA is doing away with RPI because it is essentially just based on winning percentage, opponents win%, and opponents opponents. You can rig it to face lower teams with high expected win%s to boost RPI. And it doesn't take into account margin of victory.

ODU is going to be in trouble if 'margin of victory' becomes a deciding factor for selecting post season at large bids.

I havent looked. How does margin of victory compare to their margin of defeat?

Margin of victory is such an idiotic way to measure anything that of course the NCAA will decide to adopt it.

Hypothetically, odu beats a 300+ rpi team by 30 points and a top 25 team by 1 point.

Another bubble team beats the same 300 rpi team by 20 and the same top 25 team by 20.

The second team's accomplishment is much more impressive but going by margin of victory they are exactly equal.

DUMB. Unless they decide to weight margain of victory against rpi or some other measure but then you are opening up a whole other can of worms with teams now scheduling games to get blowout games into their schedule and good luck ever getting a power conference team to go on the road at a mid major again because even if they do win, it's going to be a really close game which hurts "Margin of victory".

God the NCAA sucks.