|
Post by beaverinohio on Nov 8, 2019 10:37:03 GMT -8
I'll stand by the guess that Wilson is/would be better than Silva and Dastrup. He was slow, but had potential to be a Pac12 big. Only saw Campbell informally and in his limited minutes, but will also say I thought he was potentially better overall player than Hollins. As far as recruiting... WT has the final say. Doesn't matter who the lead guy is, he's the HC and no one gets a schollie without his approval. Campbell was a clone of Hollins with a little more aggressiveness on the offensive end. Great athlete, but not a great BB player. As far as Wilson, I didn’t see it. There’s a reason he ended up at Idaho. Campbell was about 3 inches shorter than Hollins.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 8, 2019 12:35:28 GMT -8
Campbell was a clone of Hollins with a little more aggressiveness on the offensive end. Great athlete, but not a great BB player. As far as Wilson, I didn’t see it. There’s a reason he ended up at Idaho. Campbell was about 3 inches shorter than Hollins. Was talking about height, just type of player
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 9, 2019 12:36:57 GMT -8
I was annoyed Tinkle was in at sub 4 minutes with a 20 point lead. And I know many of us get on the elder Tinkle's case about his rotation... but honestly I really do not think he operates any differently than basically any other college coach. I have looked at the 2018 team stats of the pac-12 teams, and a couple other high profile teams. Guys, guess what, it is like a broken record. 4 dudes average 35+ minute. two dudes split like 25 minutes and it falls off a cliff after that. Most teams have a starting 5 that dominate the minutes. Most team have reserves that average sub 10 minutes. Most teams only see significant reserve minutes (10-20) with one player, sometimes on good and deep teams. I know what is ideal and what we want. I am unconvinced Tinkle is some outlier in the big picture. I want to see reserves playing in games in hand, I want to see up playing more guys when we can. I just don't think Tinkle is unconventional in how he has managed minutes. in fact, I think he is painfully, exactly, average. Hmmm... since your post seems to have the tone of some kind of arrogant chastising let's just see about a few items you pontificate on: Minutes played leaders by team (top 8): 30.8, 28.8, 28.1, 24.8, 24.9, 24.9, 24.4, 19.2 32.6, 32.4, 31.5, 29.3, 29.0, 25.0, 17.4, 13.1 34.5, 34.4, 32.6, 28.4, 20.6, 19.6, 16.0, 11.7 30.5, 28.9, 26.2, 25.9, 25.5, 21.1, 21.1, 17.3 35.5, 30.5, 27.0, 24.3, 24.0, 19.1, 17.9, 14.7 36.6, 36.4, 34.4, 23.5, 21.2, 19.2, 15.3, 10.9 32.7, 30.3, 28.6, 28.3, 25.1, 22.3, 16.0, 12.7 31.7, 31.2, 24.5, 23.3, 20.2, 19.7, 17.5, 17.4 33.5, 33.2, 30.0, 27.8, 27.7, 24.2, 22.1, 20.4 32.3, 28.7, 27.3, 24.2, 21.9, 20.1, 20.0, 12.4 34.4, 33.0, 31.1, 25.9, 22.5, 20.5, 17.9, 11.7 34.4, 30.6, 24.2, 21.3, 20.9, 18.1, 17.9, 16.5, So, it seems no team in the Pac12 has (4) dudes getting 35 min/game... or even close! Several teams have multiple starters and subs at 20+ minutes... OSU had ZERO subs get 20 min/game. Seems as multiple reserves on many teams are getting 10-20 min/game not just one. So you looked this up? Hmmmm... I'll go with just making it up on the fly to make a point, as I'm pretty sure you can read a stat sheet. NO Pac12 team had 4 players with 35+ min... NONE. Only two teams had (3) players at 32+ min. I was pretty sure before even looking that OSU had the three highest combined over 30 min/game... 36, 36, 34 (3 of the top 8 in the league)... and, had the worst bench minutes... after Vernon (8th in minutes played) only ONE other player saw action who finished the season, WW at 7.8 min/game. Most other Pac12 teams had player 9, even 10 or 11 get 3-10+ min/game. And, to my knowledge no one complained WT was an outlier... completely a made up assertion by you as not one poster stated his substitutions were so different than other coaches. Simple conversation involving WT getting lower level recruits/classes, developing players, not losing players he does get, not risking injury to those who will carry an inexperienced team, and how playing time is a factor. Really not a crazy discussion at all... I don't have any problem being wrong. I don't have any problem admitting that when I was writing what I was writing I wasn't intending to be specific and yes I made up numbers in an attempt to speak to a larger point. I was trying to convey a general theme of usage, that theme being: most team heavily use their starters and I don't think Tinkle is that out of whack. I really wasn't trying to say 35+ minutes as the god's honest truth. Yes, I just pulled that number out because it isn't like I keep handy spreadsheets of this s%#t. I was, of course, being lazy. I also don't have a problem arguing a point, or disagreeing or being in stupid fights on the internet. And I will always admit when I am wrong. I am human, I miss-remember things or have the wrong interpretation of things. I was wrong to misstate statistics in an attempt to convey a broader point. But I do have a problem with you, Baseball, having the god damned audacity to ever try and call any other poster out for being chastising or condescending. You, of all people, have absolutely zero moral authority to ever speak to that. A condescending asshole does not get to call others a condescending asshole. Not now, not ever. That is narcissists do. despicable, greasy, weasel behavior.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 9, 2019 13:36:26 GMT -8
Hmmm... since your post seems to have the tone of some kind of arrogant chastising let's just see about a few items you pontificate on: Minutes played leaders by team (top 8): 30.8, 28.8, 28.1, 24.8, 24.9, 24.9, 24.4, 19.2 32.6, 32.4, 31.5, 29.3, 29.0, 25.0, 17.4, 13.1 34.5, 34.4, 32.6, 28.4, 20.6, 19.6, 16.0, 11.7 30.5, 28.9, 26.2, 25.9, 25.5, 21.1, 21.1, 17.3 35.5, 30.5, 27.0, 24.3, 24.0, 19.1, 17.9, 14.7 36.6, 36.4, 34.4, 23.5, 21.2, 19.2, 15.3, 10.9 32.7, 30.3, 28.6, 28.3, 25.1, 22.3, 16.0, 12.7 31.7, 31.2, 24.5, 23.3, 20.2, 19.7, 17.5, 17.4 33.5, 33.2, 30.0, 27.8, 27.7, 24.2, 22.1, 20.4 32.3, 28.7, 27.3, 24.2, 21.9, 20.1, 20.0, 12.4 34.4, 33.0, 31.1, 25.9, 22.5, 20.5, 17.9, 11.7 34.4, 30.6, 24.2, 21.3, 20.9, 18.1, 17.9, 16.5, So, it seems no team in the Pac12 has (4) dudes getting 35 min/game... or even close! Several teams have multiple starters and subs at 20+ minutes... OSU had ZERO subs get 20 min/game. Seems as multiple reserves on many teams are getting 10-20 min/game not just one. So you looked this up? Hmmmm... I'll go with just making it up on the fly to make a point, as I'm pretty sure you can read a stat sheet. NO Pac12 team had 4 players with 35+ min... NONE. Only two teams had (3) players at 32+ min. I was pretty sure before even looking that OSU had the three highest combined over 30 min/game... 36, 36, 34 (3 of the top 8 in the league)... and, had the worst bench minutes... after Vernon (8th in minutes played) only ONE other player saw action who finished the season, WW at 7.8 min/game. Most other Pac12 teams had player 9, even 10 or 11 get 3-10+ min/game. And, to my knowledge no one complained WT was an outlier... completely a made up assertion by you as not one poster stated his substitutions were so different than other coaches. Simple conversation involving WT getting lower level recruits/classes, developing players, not losing players he does get, not risking injury to those who will carry an inexperienced team, and how playing time is a factor. Really not a crazy discussion at all... I don't have any problem being wrong. I don't have any problem admitting that when I was writing what I was writing I wasn't intending to be specific and yes I made up numbers in an attempt to speak to a larger point. I was trying to convey a general theme of usage, that theme being: most team heavily use their starters and I don't think Tinkle is that out of whack. I really wasn't trying to say 35+ minutes as the god's honest truth. Yes, I just pulled that number out because it isn't like I keep handy spreadsheets of this s%#t. I was, of course, being lazy. I also don't have a problem arguing a point, or disagreeing or being in stupid fights on the internet. And I will always admit when I am wrong. I am human, I miss-remember things or have the wrong interpretation of things. I was wrong to misstate statistics in an attempt to convey a broader point. But I do have a problem with you, Baseball, having the god damned audacity to ever try and call any other poster out for being chastising or condescending. You, of all people, have absolutely zero moral authority to ever speak to that. A condescending asshole does not get to call others a condescending asshole. Not now, not ever. That is narcissists do. despicable, greasy, weasel behavior. Not only did you post as if it were fact, you now attempt to cover it by saying you can make stuff up to prove a larger point? Yeah. Lol... you mean fabrication to make up a point? Because to make the "larger" point, simply stating the numbers don't show WT is that abnormal in parceling minutes. So besides now admitting... sort of... you were wrong, you get testy about being called in completely made up BS. You also have an issue when humor/sarcasm is pointed toward your mistakes/BS. But, then again recognition of truth may be an issue for you?! So, now on to the important issue... Beaver hoops vs ISU. PS- a lot of Iowa folks in attendance.
|
|
|
Post by obf on Nov 11, 2019 9:53:52 GMT -8
For me Warren Washington is the canary in the coal mine on this theory. Warren was 100% Pac-12 quality, had already show flashes and aptitude IN PAC-12 play, and yet still his minutes fell off to practically nothing as the season wore on. IIRC injuries and/or fouls thinned the rotation which led to WW's increased minutes to begin Pac-12 play, and even though he was more than holding his own, and helping in Pac-12 wins, for whatever reason (someone remind me, did Big G come back from injury orsomething? Did he find the doghouse for some reason?) the last 13 games of the season he got little more than token minutes. Not only is this a "fairness" issue (ok, ok, I know there is no such thing as "fair"), and a load management issue for the starters (which WT readily admits to), it is a developmental / recruitment / retainment issue. WW would be a HUGE boon to our front line right now! How good would a starting line up like this look! PG : Ethan SG : Zach (soon to be Jared?) SF: Tres PF: Warren WashingtonC: Kylor Then a second unit of: PG: Gianni/Vernon SG: Lucas SF: SMM Large Foul Soaker: Dastrup/Silva/Dearon Now that is starting to look like a deep team! Big G was injured and then game back which diminished Warren's minutes. Also, nice of you to just kick Hollins off the team in your above lineup. Yeah, it was a freudian slip, as is noted further up this thread, Hollins being a starter is something that clearly irks me. Of course then he went out had had a fine game against Iowa State, so may be I am full of shirt
|
|
|
Post by obf on Nov 11, 2019 10:05:39 GMT -8
That in itself makes it matter considering that big men are the place where we are only an injury away from playing four guard lineups. I'll stand by the guess that Wilson is/would be better than Silva and Dastrup. He was slow, but had potential to be a Pac12 big. Only saw Campbell informally and in his limited minutes, but will also say I thought he was potentially better overall player than Hollins. As far as recruiting... WT has the final say. Doesn't matter who the lead guy is, he's the HC and no one gets a schollie without his approval. Small sample size to be sure (although Jack Wilson's sample size was -- couldn't ever get on the floor even in blow outs or when others were injured/in foul trouble small), but so far Silva has been a huge (pun intended!) pleasent suprise to me! Dude is a giant, legit 7, maybe even 7'1", and could stand to lose a few lbs. But he moves well for a man that size, including getting up and down the court without being totally gassed. Has some actual low post moves, and is active enough on defense to not be a seive. And of course he has all the advantages of being that big, including being a good rebounder and a big body clogging the lane. Heck, just being able to catch a pass on the low block or in pick and roll, let alone finishing, is a big step up from some of our former backup bigs! Of course production wise Silva is already miles ahead of Wilson or even Washington (although I think Warrens potential was much better). After two games I have already pencilled Silva in as the main backup for KK, and 10 minutes a game in my mind. Silva has gone from project/probably a Liam Hughes style big man to solid backup, and lets get him slimmed down so he can play 20+ minutes a game next year
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 9:10:06 GMT -8
I'll stand by the guess that Wilson is/would be better than Silva and Dastrup. He was slow, but had potential to be a Pac12 big. Only saw Campbell informally and in his limited minutes, but will also say I thought he was potentially better overall player than Hollins. As far as recruiting... WT has the final say. Doesn't matter who the lead guy is, he's the HC and no one gets a schollie without his approval. Small sample size to be sure (although Jack Wilson's sample size was -- couldn't ever get on the floor even in blow outs or when others were injured/in foul trouble small), but so far Silva has been a huge (pun intended!) pleasent suprise to me! Dude is a giant, legit 7, maybe even 7'1", and could stand to lose a few lbs. But he moves well for a man that size, including getting up and down the court without being totally gassed. Has some actual low post moves, and is active enough on defense to not be a seive. And of course he has all the advantages of being that big, including being a good rebounder and a big body clogging the lane. Heck, just being able to catch a pass on the low block or in pick and roll, let alone finishing, is a big step up from some of our former backup bigs! Of course production wise Silva is already miles ahead of Wilson or even Washington (although I think Warrens potential was much better). After two games I have already pencilled Silva in as the main backup for KK, and 10 minutes a game in my mind. Silva has gone from project/probably a Liam Hughes style big man to solid backup, and lets get him slimmed down so he can play 20+ minutes a game next year I would say he does not move well for his size. BUT, as you noted, he is big and tall and moreover he has shown a bully instinct which most guys his size lack. He got called for a swinging shoulder screen but god bless for him stonewalling that OK player. Silva>Wilson. Wilson was like the missing beach boy, always at the tat shop or waxing his board. Silva has no place in the offensive side of the run game, he simply doesnt run fast enough but he has plenty of uses in the half court game. He seems to know the low post keep away game, ball up, protect with the elbows, pivot and pump fake your way to the glass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 9:40:58 GMT -8
69-57 Beavers with 8:15 left. Lucas hits his first collegiate 3 Lucas has a really smooth looking shot except when he rushes and shoots awkwardly. He is 3-8 out of the gate. But yeah he will makes shots with that release when he calms down.
|
|
|
Post by osubeaver2018 on Nov 14, 2019 10:57:38 GMT -8
Lucas has a really smooth looking shot except when he rushes and shoots awkwardly. He is 3-8 out of the gate. But yeah he will makes shots with that release when he calms down. I'll take a 37.5 3Pt% all season long. Maybe some would like it to be closer to 40% from someone who is touted as a pure shooter but 3/8 is nothing to scoff at for a guy still adjusting to D1 play.
|
|